From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 00:10:45 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 00:10:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176513 Sorry if it's a little bit OT, but I want to say that I'm really glad that DD turned out to be not as old as I thought! After DH I believed that his age was inconsistent with Muriel's age. I mean, if she is 107, that would make her 40+ years younger than DD, so how could she be alive when Ariana died? DD would be 18 then, and Muriel was not supposed to be born yet. Now that it turns out that DD was born in 1881, the whole thing is more believable, IMO. If DD was 115 when he died in 1996, there would be something like 9-10 years difference between him and Muriel, right? She was a little girl when Ariana died, but at least she was born already :-)! I'm just glad that at least one DH inconsistency is down! zanooda From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Sep 1 02:11:18 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 19:11:18 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <46CF4EE3.000006.03472@MOMS> References: <46CF4EE3.000006.03472@MOMS> Message-ID: <2795713f0708311911h319cd04w1553c8bcc3bf5aef@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176514 Debi: I belive Harry would name his kids after people in his Hogwarts "family" since he didn't have much of a family himself, Harry became Harry when he found out he had magic and discovered Hogwarts, before that he just sorta existed. Lynda: Back after a week offline and wading hipdeep into my email I'll agree with you here. I don't think Harry's going to name his kids Vernon, Marge, Dudley or Petunia. On the naming of kids, I don't have any myself, but I think that I would have preferred not to name any kids of mine after family members or living people. Certainly my pets don't suffer that fate, although I did have problems explaining why my ginger tabby cat was named Anubis. The next one, Kit people thought they understood, although he was not named after a candy bar. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sat Sep 1 03:34:47 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 13:34:47 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Another inconsistency? Message-ID: <20070901133447.CTL68831@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176515 "Monica" > > it seemed to me that when Harry and Dobby are > apparating out of > > Malfoy manor, Harry's concentration and the way it > was written told me > > that this was his first time apparating. > > Zanooda: It was not his first time Apparating :-). He > Apparated himself and > Dumbledore after the cave back to Hogsmeade in HBP. > I really think that > in DH Hermione is "in charge" of their Apparations > not because Harry > and Ron can't do it, but because they want to get to > the same place and > not to get lost. > Sharon: Also he regularly apparated by himself out of 12 Grimauld Place to the MOM when they were planning to go to the MOM to look for the locket. Not that it matters too much. A someone said - -sorry I forget who -- the fact that he doesn't have a license doesn't seem to stop him from apparating. He just never got caught, so never got fined. From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sat Sep 1 03:52:15 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 03:52:15 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176516 > > Carol responds: > > Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about the > ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead > goblin for Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold for it. > Griphook's wanting it back for the gobins in general makes no sense. > What are they going to do with it, keep it in Gringotts? That won't > work because it's enchanted to come out of the Sorting Hat for any > Gryffindor who needs it. (Of course, in the two instances we've seen, > the Sorting Hat *happened* to be right there, delivered by Fawkes in > the one instance and summoned by Voldemort himself in the other. > Complicated logistics, part of the "help will always come at Hogwarts > to those who ask for it" idea, I suppose.) > > At any rate, as I see it, goblin-made swords, armor, tiaras, etc., do > belong to the wizards who paid for them, just as my car belongs to me > and not to the Ford workers who manufactured it. It may be a "human" > idea of ownership, but it makes much more sense than returning a sword > or tiara or whatever to the goblin who made it on the death of the > wizard who *bought*, not *leased* it. Should wands made by Ollivander > return to him on the death of the wizard who made them? *He* doesn't > expect that to happpen. Neither, IMO, should the goblins. > > With regard to employment opportunities, the right to carry wand > (which they don't need), and their right to live in peace, Griphook > and the goblins have more legitimate grievances, but Griphook's idea > that he was retrieving goblin property by seizing the Sword of > Gryffindor (willed to Harry by DD, who was presumably its legitimate > owner as headmaster of Hogwarts, and made available to Harry and Ron > by another headmaster, Severus Snape, who makes sure that the sword is > retrieved under circumstances involving valor and chivalry as required > by its internal magic) is, IMO, just absurd. An artifact can't belong > to a group. The only goblin with a hint of a legitimate claim would be > a descendant of the original maker, and even then the descendant or > heir of the original buyer would have a better claim. > > Carol, who does not consider her legally purchased copy of DH to > belong to JK Rowling even though Rowling created it, property rights > being different from copyright protection > Hickengruendler: I completely agree with this. After reading this thread, I tried seeing it from the Goblins' point of view, but I simply can't. I admit that part of the reason might be, that the Wizard's idea of property in this case basically is the same as ours, and I'm sinply raised that way, but the Goblins' claim make no sense to me, particularly Griphook's. For me, it is as if some German had sold a car to an American some eighty years ago, and now I want to have the Oldtimer, because I'm a German as well. That's just odd. Also, to me it just reads as if the Goblins want both, the gold and the valuable object, it was paid for, and that doesn't exactly endear me to them. I do see, that Griphook was simply raised with different values, but I simply cannot sympathise with him here. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 04:00:41 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 04:00:41 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176517 > Hickengruendler: > > I completely agree with this. After reading this thread, I tried > seeing it from the Goblins' point of view, but I simply can't. I > admit that part of the reason might be, that the Wizard's idea of > property in this case basically is the same as ours, and I'm sinply > raised that way, but the Goblins' claim make no sense to me, > particularly Griphook's. For me, it is as if some German had sold a > car to an American some eighty years ago, and now I want to have the > Oldtimer, because I'm a German as well. That's just odd. > > Also, to me it just reads as if the Goblins want both, the gold and > the valuable object, it was paid for, and that doesn't exactly endear > me to them. I do see, that Griphook was simply raised with different > values, but I simply cannot sympathise with him here. > Alla: I had been also reading this thread and thinking about it and I was just about to write that whether it makes sense to us or not, is not the point to me that Goblin POV on property should be respected IMO as well. Nevertheless, I was hesitant to write it, because something bugged me too, and I was not particularly sympathetic to Griphokk either and I could not put my finger upon it. I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both** money and property just seems so very **unfair** to me. Um, dears, if that is how you view your products, first do what Steve suggested, namely drew a written contract :), but also, um kindly return the money to the family of the wizard, from whom you want to take the object back. Um, yeah, my opinion of course. Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 05:04:59 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 05:04:59 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176518 > Alla: > > I had been also reading this thread and thinking about it and I was > just about to write that whether it makes sense to us or not, is not > the point to me that Goblin POV on property should be respected IMO > as well. > > > Um, dears, if that is how you view your products, first do what > Steve suggested, namely drew a written contract :), but also, um > kindly return the money to the family of the wizard, from whom you > want to take the object back. Prep0strus: When I first read about the goblin view of property, I was pretty much ok with it - it seems to ring true in the back of my mind that there is some basis in some mythology or prior foundation fantasy- goblins or dwarfs or some group having this view of objects they created. I can't recall where I think this might be from, or find it, so maybe i'm making it up... I also hope if it is true that there is a better explanation for why it is unresolved - perhaps the group is more insistent it's just a loaner, and then it gets stolen... because that's my real problem here. not the cultural differences, but that there's been no effort whatsoever to work it out. It just seems silly that after all this time, and the goblins having at least some rights in society that they continue to make and give away these objects without an agreed upon contract. They're bankers, after all! I think it's just another example of a book for children that isn't fully fleshed out as far as adults might like to see it. The whole Griphook storyline was frustrating. We see harry inspiring his partial trust with his wonderful and rare treatment of dobby, and we do love harry for it, and see a wizard who might make real changes with interspecies relations. we see griphook respect him, and them work together, and harry agree to give him this sword... and then we see that harry is going to screw him as well. now, not totally, as he does plan to fulfill his obligations eventually, but there is definitely greyness that we know will impact his relationship... then the work together more, Harry saves his life, Griphook screws him before Harry can 'tweak' the rules, and then... none of it matters because Griphook's view is simply wrong, and true Griffindors get the sword. And nobody feels bad because Griphook was kind've a tool anyway. And that is pretty much the 'goblin-human' story that we see. The 'wandbearers' thing didn't impact me at all because of the whole 'craftsman' issue. One group can't be bitter of the other's secrets when they have their own. But I just don't get why JKR put so much into the books. All these little tantalizing dead ends. Every species... of any of them, maybe the rarely seen centaurs get the most promising arc. They think they are removed from the world, but in the end decide to join the fight. As for the rest... ambassadors to the giants don't do much. They fight for evil at the end, and after Voldemorte is defeated... what happened to them?? They don't seem bright enough to realize when the fight is over. And Grawp alone doesn't seem like he's going to start a new age of happy wizard relations. With goblins, we're left seeing them as grubby little losers. They may get the bank, but it doesn't seem like anybody 's even trying to work out a deal for anything else. And house elves, which we had our faces shoved into over and over again... one free, happy, independent house elf, who's now dead. Lots of other house elves who never got over their distaste of that own house elf, and who apparently really are property, not people. I think i would've liked to see Kreacher get his independence at the end, just so we know that somewhere, there is another free elf. His arc was a lot of fun, but in the end he's just an old, third class humanoid whose servitude is a little happier. I just don't understand WHY, jkr. Why SPEW? Why stress the houses coming together? Why Draco as a major character in HBP? Why stress 'dark' magic? Why inferi? Why have 'unforgiveables'? Why make Ron great at chess? (ok, that's just a pet peeve of mine) Why so many things that seem to have meaning or a portent of something more to follow just to... not? The story is already chock full of important things. We don't need to waste pages on SPEW just to learn that they like being slaves, don't worry about it. We don't want to invest, trying to figure out how Slytherin will rise above everything that's ever been said about it to show itself as equal, just to have everything stay the same. But of course, pages and pages are then given to totally new, complicated, previously unaddressed topics like wand control and new magic items. I dunno. It used to be that the topics that got the most discussion were because of all the possibilities that could have unfolded from them. Now, the unfolding is done, and most of the topics of discussion aren't here because there's this richness to continue to explore, but because of weird holes and inconsistencies that everyone is trying to fill and explain. It is a bit of letdown. And, of course, anytime i said, 'we', i meant...me. :) ~Adam, who has been trying to post about Slytherin for days, but gets so frustrated with his own post he's glad to see other little topics to chat about, and who also realizes that he strayed quite far from the original topic of goblin property From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 06:51:08 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:51:08 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? - Apparation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176519 --- "zanooda2" wrote: > > --- "Monica" wrote: > > > it seemed to me that when Harry and Dobby are > > apparating out of Malfoy manor, Harry's > > concentration and the way it was written told me > > that this was his first time apparating. >zanooda2: > > It was not his first time Apparating :-). He Apparated > himself and Dumbledore after the cave back to Hogsmeade > in HBP. I really think that in DH Hermione is "in > charge" of their Apparations not because Harry and Ron > can't do it, but because they want to get to the same > place and not to get lost. > > > zanooda > bboyminn: I'm inclined to agree with Zanooda. Both Harry and Ron are capable of Apparation, but Hermione is much better at it. When they are Apparating in a group, it is better to let Hermione be in charge since she is best, and since she actually knows where they are going. They can't afford to get separated. As to specifically Apparating from Malfoy Manor to Shell Cottage, I think it is important when you are in a group that one person be in charge. That way you don't get a conflict of intent or destination. I suspect that Dobby initiated that particular event of Apparation, but at the same time Harry did intent to go to Shell Cottage. On one hand, he knew where he wanted to go, and he also assumed that is where Dobby had previously went, but in a momentary emergency Apparation, Harry really couldn't be sure. So, I think the hesitancy we see in Harry during that event is Harry trying to turn control over to Dobby. I said before, a long time ago, that conflict of intent was one of the great hazards of Side-Along Apparation. When two people Apparate together, but have conflicting intents regarding destination, anything can happen. You never really know where you will end up. So, I think we see Harry doing his best to coordinate is intended destination with the destination he assume Dobby is taking them to. I see nothing in the books to indicate that Harry or Ron can't Apparate, and in fact, they both do on occasion, initiate either independent Apparation or group Apparation. As far as, them not having their license, I think that is roughly the equivalent of a Driver's License. It's not that you can't drive without one, it's just that you shouldn't. When you consider all the magical signals that are going back to the Ministry, I think to some extent the system is overwhelmed. Consequently most common magic is ignore, and only uncommon, extreme, or magic in front of muggles is dealt with by members of the Ministry. There are just too many indicators of Apparation in the wizard world to be able to sort out specifically Harry, Ron, and/or Hermione. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 06:59:38 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 06:59:38 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176520 > > Hickengruendler: > > After reading this thread, I tried seeing it from the Goblins' > > point of view, but I simply can't. > > For me, it is as if some German had sold a car to an American > > some eighty years ago, and now I want to have the Oldtimer, > > because I'm a German as well. That's just odd. > Alla: > I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both** money > and property just seems so very **unfair** to me. > Um, dears, if that is how you view your products, first do what > Steve suggested, namely drew a written contract :), but also, > um kindly return the money to the family of the wizard, from > whom you want to take the object back. Goddlefrood: Is it odd for the Greeks to want the return of the Elgin marbles, albeit they were obtained in possibly less than legal circumstances? It would be to many, but apparently not to many Greeks. These were manufactured, or carved if you prefer, centuries ago. They still belong to the Greek people, or so they say. They are currently in the British Museum in London, unless I'm much mistaken. There are many artifacts that change hands for money and later still get returned to their so called rightful owners. It happens in the Pacific quite regularly with Whale's teeth, something that a good number of you on this list might find odd, as I did before living out here for quite a few years. Basically what happens is that at one time or another, quite typically in a ceremony, a whale's tooth (or tabua in Fiji), is handed over or bought by a visitor in an untraditional manner. The traditional way of handing over tabuas is hardly worth getting into as it doesn't relate to anything in the HP series whatsoever. Neither does this post so far, but it will, oh yes. Anyway, once a tabua is discovered in the not right hands, despite its often having been bought for cash or other exchange, the original owners get right on to getting it back. There is in the ownership of tabua no way for it to change *ever*, even when traditionally exchanged, even then the tabua would be considered to be only on loan until the donee died. Often the tabua will be recovered by the original owners and there is certainly no question of any money that was ever paid being refunded. Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I believe you may agree. Goddlefrood, who was rather surprised to get an opportunity to say something about tabuas. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 07:23:29 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:23:29 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176521 --- "Goddlefrood" wrote: > > Goddlefrood: > > Is it odd for the Greeks to want the return of the > Elgin marbles, albeit they were obtained in possibly > less than legal circumstances? > > ... > > There are many artifacts that change hands for money > and later still get returned to their so called > rightful owners. It happens in the Pacific quite > regularly with Whale's teeth, ... (or tabua in Fiji), > ... > > Often the tabua will be recovered by the original > owners and there is certainly no question of any money that was ever paid being refunded. > > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I > believe you may agree. > > Goddlefrood, ... bboyminn: A very interesting post but I don't think the analogy holds up. With Greek Historical Artifacts, the sculptor sold a statue to his patron. The patron then owns the object until a few centuries pass and arrogant Western Europeans dig them and a decree that by virtue of the fact that they touched them, they now own them and have a right to haul them back to England. That is not what happened with the Sword. The creator sold it to the 'patron', and the Sword is still, to a reasonable extent, in the control of the patron's ancestors. Though after a thousand years, it has become more of a public historical artifact. Which is why Scrimgeour doesn't want to hand it over. Now if the Greek Sculptures has remained in Greece and eventually legally fell into the control of historical artifact caretakers of the country, then there wouldn't be a problem. In a sense, the sculpture would still be in the hands of the descendants of the original patron. It is one thing to purchase a historical carved Whale's tooth from the pillager of tombs, which is what you are suggesting; but it is quite another thing to purchase a carved whale's tooth from the sculptor who actually carved it, which is closer to what happened with the Sword. As far as we know, the Sword was legally purchased by the crafts-goblin who made it, and it still remain with those who now 1,000 years later are charged with its care. I see that as quite different from object pillaged from foreign tombs. Do you see my point here? Steve/bboyminn From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 07:44:44 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 07:44:44 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176522 > > Goddlefrood (further snipped): > > Often the tabua (whale's tooth) will be recovered by the > > original owners and there is certainly no question of any > > money that was ever paid being refunded. > > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I > > believe you may agree. > Steve/bboyminn: > That is not what happened with the Sword. The creator > sold it to the 'patron', and the Sword is still, to > a reasonable extent, in the control of the patron's > ancestors. Though after a thousand years, it has become > more of a public historical artifact. Which is why > Scrimgeour doesn't want to hand it over. Goddlefrood: Largely agreed, although as will hopefully become clear shortly on the matter of whale's teeth there is a little clarification I offer below. Steve/bboyminn: > It is one thing to purchase a historical carved Whale's > tooth from the pillager of tombs, which is what you are > suggesting; but it is quite another thing to purchase > a carved whale's tooth from the sculptor who actually > carved it, which is closer to what happened with the > Sword. Goddlefrood: A tabua would never be buried with anyone, it would either rot or it would be passed down through the generations of the original owner's family. It actuially is the tooth of a whale, not some carved or manufactured item. They have a very high value for the indigenous peoples of the Pacific and old ones are particularly highly valued. Of course I recognise that this is quite different from the matter under consideration, viz Gryffindor's Sword. Gryffindor did buy it, there's little doubt of that, however, the basic analogy is a good one. Once a tabua has been sold, and they can be, the person buying has no right of transfer upon death according to the traditional or original owner. There's the way in which the goblins, in my reading, consider the item, specifically the sword, but also Aunt Muriel's tiara, to always belong to them notwithstanding who currently holds it. Perhaps a form of trust, to give it a legal construct, would be another way of considering the goblin attitude. They are effectively saying: "I'll sell it to you, but you hold it on trust for me to be returned". The problem, naturally, being that they do *not* make this clear to their customer, and they certainly should rather than brood over something that they have little right to brood over precisely because they have probably not made it clear when selling such items outside their race that this is their attitude. It wouldn't be too good for business either I would think if the goblins' attitude to ownership became known to the human wizards with whom they dealt. > Steve/bboyminn: > Do you see my point here? Goddlefrood: I certainly do and I hope mine is now a little clearer too. From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 1 12:00:34 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 12:00:34 -0000 Subject: New to the Harry Potter Books Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176523 Hi, I'm just a new convert to Harry Potter. As I've seen the movies; I thought that I'd have no trouble reading the final book, how wrong I was. I've now bought myself all the books, wishing that I had started reading them earlier. I've also found that I'm now completely hooked on Harry Potter; and find myself asking if maybe J. K. Rowling used the same Dark Magic as Tom Riddle did with his diary in the Chamber of Secrets. I was wondering if the reason that J.K. Rowling left a nineteen year gap at the end of The Deathly Hallows was that if she decided she could maybe bring Harry back at an later date. salo.krano From olgakropkook at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 13:26:17 2007 From: olgakropkook at yahoo.com (olgakropkook) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 13:26:17 -0000 Subject: New to the Harry Potter Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176524 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > I was wondering if the reason that J.K. Rowling left a nineteen year > gap at the end of The Deathly Hallows was that if she decided she > could maybe bring Harry back at an later date. olgakropkook: Hi, welcome! to answer your question, JKR stated on the Today show that the reason she chose 19 years was that it gave time for everyone to grow up, she did not want to promote teen pregnancies... no, she is not writing any more Harry books.. there will be most likely one more follow up book with more details and info, like a reference book, that she will write for charity like the Fantastic Beasts and the quiddich thru the ages. Happy reading! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 1 15:11:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:11:45 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176525 > > Carol responds: > > > > Goblins' rights aside, Griphook *is* wrong--as in mistaken--about > the > > ownership of the Sword of Gryffindor. It was made by a long-dead > > goblin for Godric Gryffindor, who paid a large amount of gold for > it. > Hickengruendler: > > I completely agree with this. After reading this thread, I tried > seeing it from the Goblins' point of view, but I simply can't. I > admit that part of the reason might be, that the Wizard's idea of > property in this case basically is the same as ours, and I'm sinply > raised that way, but the Goblins' claim make no sense to me, > particularly Griphook's. Magpie: I wasn't sure about responding to the thread because I agree too--and I wasn't sure if Carol's thread implied she thought I didn't or not.:) I think whatever the Goblin perspective is on this, Gryffindor certainly didn't "steal" the sword in the way Harry or the reader would understand the word. He exchanged money for a product. When Griphook says he stole it Harry of course imagines that he just snatched it without paying and without the Goblin ever wanting him to have it. He discovers this is not the case at all. Even from Griphook's pov, Gryffindor exchanged something for the sword with the original Goblin's consent. So yes, I think Griphook is wrong in that he's not using the word "steal" to mean what we use it to mean or what Harry uses it to mean. The sword even seems to agree when it comes back to Neville and Griphook loses it again. I would be surprised if the average reader thinks any differently than Harry when they learn the truth--just as I think that reader would be more likely to agree with Hermione about Griphook being wrong about his view of what's going on with the wand- users given the pov of the book and where his/her sympathies are likely to have been during it. It would take a lot of work with the Goblin's pov to make the audience, imo, really feel things the way he does and we're not getting it. It doesn't hold up the way many real life alternative ideas about ownership do, imo. If Gryffindor had merely rented the sword and not given it back, and it was understood that's what he did, it would be stealing, but that doesn't seem to be what happened. The Goblins don't seem to be running a rental agency (and I don't know how they expect to run a bank--do they think the Goblins own all the minted coins too? Can Goblins inherit? If so, why, since they didn't make the thing themselves? Even the author doesn't seem to have actual respect for this system when she refers to fanatics and says Griphook's just wrong. -m (who can't really think of any time in canon the way of the correct Wizards doesn't seem to be the best way) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 15:30:17 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:30:17 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: <578435.8581.qm@web30114.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Barbara Key wrote: > > > From JKR's website: > snip > > > > Hexes: > > Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but > > of a minor sort. > > I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' > > for spells whose > > effects are irritating but amusing. > > > > Amusing to whom. While I am sure the casters (James > and Sirius) are rolling around laughing, I doubt very > much if the child that found his head swollen to twice > its size (HBP) got a good chuckle out of it. > > Barbara > lizzyben: I've always had a suspicion that the Maruaders were pretty into "Dark Magic" themselves. First of all, they created the Marauders Map, which was a very sophisticated magical item. The Map seems to even think for itself to a certain degree, just like Riddle's Diary - both respond to questions w/written answers. The Map comes up w/insults for Professor Snape, seemingly of it's own accord. Snape, the Dark Arts/DADA expert, says that the Map is "full of Dark Magic," and he would know. Second, the Marauders all became Animagi, which is apparently also very complicated magic that isn't taught at Hogwarts. How would they learn how to do this? I'm thinking some visits to the "Restricted Section" of the Hogwarts library - where Dark Arts volumes are stored. Third, Lupin is a werewolf, which is a Dark creature. He's a nice guy, a Gryfindor, and also a "Dark Magic" creature. Fourth, James & Sirius use hexes, jinxes & curses w/abandon. They used an *illegal* hex to swell another student's head to twice its normal size. Where'd they learn all those "amusing" hexes? Some dusty old "Dark Arts" volume that Sirius found in the library, or among his family's books, perhaps? All this combined, I'd say that the Marauders were pretty well-versed in the "Dark Arts" while at Hogwarts. But of course James just *hated* the Dark Arts, even though he used Dark Magic himself. So... this really just means that he hated Slytherins, & Snape especially. When Harry confronts Sirius about SWM, Sirius doesn't say anything to defend James' actions in that memory. Instead Sirius rapidly switches subjects to talk about how, whatever his faults, James just hated the Dark Arts. It's interesting to me that Sirius would bring Dark Magic up at that moment, apropos of nothing - almost like a twinge of guilt? And what better way to get rid of that guilt than to assign it to their favorite scapegoat? The Marauders hated the "Dark Arts", yet used Dark Magic themselves. This caused them some moments of cognitive dissonance & guilt, but they figured that they can handle this magic, because they're Gryffindors & on the "good side". They're not like, like... that creepy "Dark Arts" Snape kid! They project their own misuse of magic onto Snape, & scapegoat him for their own actions. Then they beat up Snape on a regular basis to get rid of their own guilt over using Dark Magic. It perfectly fits the pattern - Snape as scapegoat for the Gryfindors' sins. The text insists that Snape was becoming a dangerous "Dark Wizard", but it doesn't actually show Snape using magic to bully or hurt people. Instead, it actually *shows* the Marauders using illegal hexes, curses, jinxes, advanced restricted magic, and Dark magical items. So who's the real "Dark Wizard" here? lizzyben From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 15:32:16 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 15:32:16 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176527 > >>Betsy Hp: > > That's not true. Crouch, Sr. was on the front lines, with his > > Aurors. > > > > And then Scrimgeour was out there *begging* for Harry to work > > with him as he did his best to fight Voldemort. > > > >>Jen: This MOM sounds *great*, not like the one that's a walking > human-rights violation when it comes to the justice > system... Betsy Hp: Why? All I'm saying is that key members of the MoM were willing to fight Voldemort, did their best to do so, and Dumbledore did not work with them. It's what JKR wrote. > >>Jen: > ...(Dementor guards? Throwing prisoners in without trials? > Innocents like Morfin Gaunt, Hokey and Stan Shunpike who don't get > through investigative trials because of their status?) > Betsy Hp: Right. The WW is brutal and dark. Of course the MoM is too. But where was Dumbledore? For quite a while we're told that Fudge was wrapped around his little finger (as per PS/SS) and we have nothing to show that Dumbledore put much effort into questioning the above behaviors. (Their continued existence either meant Fudge wasn't all that well wrapped or that Dumbledore just made little comments from time to time. I suspect the latter.) [An aside: Are we supposed to see Stan as an innocent? ::sigh:: Yeah, I suppose we are. Because *of course* perfect Harry Potter can spot the signs of an Imperius Curse, in the middle of a flying battle on a dark and cloudy (IIRC?) night, in the face of a man he's met once and glimpsed another time over two years previous to the battle.] > >>Jen: > And don't forget people like Umbridge passing through legislation > undermining rights for 'half-breeds.' Betsy Hp: Or Arthur passing through legislation to help better protect Muggles. (Interesting that Dumbledore wasn't able to give Arthur a hand in his work back in the day. What with Fudge being so dependent and all.) Again, the MoM is brutal and dark, just like the world they serve. But we are given glimmers that suggest, to me anyway, that if Dumbledore had *channeled* his ambition, rather than fled from it, he could have achieved a great deal. Been more of an Abe Lincoln than a John Brown. (Though of course, Dumbledore was neither of those men as he was quite happy with the human pecking order of his world.) > >>Jen: > Aren't you saying Dumbledore needed more principles, that his > ideals sucked? > Betsy Hp: He certainly suffered from his own bigotry (as does the entire WW, unfortunately, with the author's bizarre approval), but no, Dumbledore did have some good ideals. At least, from what he said. But he didn't do all that much to promote them. He's the proverbial good man who, doing nothing, allows evil to flourish. (Literally, where Tom Riddle is concerned.) > >>Jen: > Dumbledore had plenty of flaws, his secrecy and tendency to rely on > himself the two biggest, and he was incapable of reforming the WW > alone. Betsy Hp: I'd have believed it more if Dumbledore had *tried*. Or if we had evidence that he had done so. > >>Jen: > If Dumbledore did nothing else in your eyes, at least he got > himself out of the way with his secrecy and planning so his vacuum > could be filled with many people instead of one, eh? ;) Betsy Hp: Heh. Yes, in these books the best thing you can do for your cause is die. Nice message, JKR. Though wasn't Dumbledore's vacuum filled with the stumbling Harry Potter? Wasn't that why Harry insisted on not getting help from anyone but Ron and Hermione (though he wasn't all that forthcoming with them either)? Because only he, Harry, could do anything? Anyone else would just screw things up? > >>Jen: > Three of his ideals came to fruition within the scope of the story > in my opinion: Differences of habit and language were put aside > when groups coalesced, the Dementors were gone from Azkaban, and > Kingsley was appointed to the MOM. I don't think his efforts were > pointless even if his cause wasn't Slytherin house. Betsy Hp: There's that big tree again. ;-) It's impossible for me to overlook the exclusion of Slytherin house. Not after Dumbledore has witnessed the evil that either its presence at the school (going with the "Slytherins *are* bad" view of the books), or its designation as Hogwarts' scapegoat (going by how my personal view still insists on subverting the text) caused so much pain in the WW. It's like trying to see how the trains ran on time, or how starving white folks got baskets of food. I still can't admire the Nazis or the Klan. The tree's just too darn big. Betsy Hp From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 1 16:13:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:13:53 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176528 > > >>Jen: > > Three of his ideals came to fruition within the scope of the story > > in my opinion: Differences of habit and language were put aside > > when groups coalesced, the Dementors were gone from Azkaban, and > > Kingsley was appointed to the MOM. I don't think his efforts were > > pointless even if his cause wasn't Slytherin house. > > Betsy Hp: > There's that big tree again. ;-) It's impossible for me to overlook > the exclusion of Slytherin house. Not after Dumbledore has witnessed > the evil that either its presence at the school (going with > the "Slytherins *are* bad" view of the books), or its designation as > Hogwarts' scapegoat (going by how my personal view still insists on > subverting the text) caused so much pain in the WW. > > It's like trying to see how the trains ran on time, or how starving > white folks got baskets of food. I still can't admire the Nazis or > the Klan. The tree's just too darn big. Magpie: But wait, didn't Voldemort do all of those things and not Dumbledore? Or is the point here that Voldemort did do it? The differences of culture were put aside very momentarily to kill Voldemort--there's no indication anybody was putting any effort into building a new society after that. A temporary "we love Harry" moment doesn't actually address any other issues that keep them apart in peacetime. Voldemort gave them a common enemy. Some groups sided with him, and some against him. (It probably goes without saying there's no compromises made on the part of the good guys, since it's really everybody else who needs to get a clue.) The Dementors, iirc, left Azkaban to join Voldemort--again, he got rid of them, not Dumbledore or society. Dumbledore worked with them as guards of Azkaban. Do we know they're not guards at Azkaban anymore? They're working at the MoM in DH, maybe they still are afterwards, only not under DEs. I don't recall getting rid of them being any main objective of Dumbledore's. Voldemort killed Scrimgeor, leaving the job open.:-) Presumably Kingsley was elected because he was a good anti-Voldemort candidate who represented the way the WW was feeling at the time, just as Scrimgeour was a man who seemed like he was tough on DEs and so better than Fudge at his time. It's a good thing, but again follows the pattern of needing the right people in charge to keep everyone in line rather than any fundamental change in the society. (I hear that would be unrealistic.;-). I'm not seeing where any of this was really put together by the good side. Fudge, who as you say was in DD's pocket, did not have a government or represent a society in any way strong enough to stand up to Voldemort en masse. They quickly fell to Voldemort's way of running things, leaving only Harry's group to save everyone and everyone to be grateful afterwards and probably give him power. There's no addressing of the underlying problems that made this likely to happen that I can see (perhaps it's considered impossible). (Meanwhile, as you say, the kids at school still correctly identify Slytherin House as the bad house and kids like Scorpius still have a lot stacked against them already by the time they're 11.) -m From aceworker at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 16:34:18 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 09:34:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Goblin's view on property Message-ID: <540412.80327.qm@web30208.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176529 Actually I rather like the Goblin's idea of property. Property belongs to the maker or the makers decedents. A 'lifetime lease' can be given to someone else but the property still belongs to the builder or builders descendant. If I were a goblin, if my great-grandfather had built a house by hand and another family lived in it for a hundred years, at the end of that time the house could be given to me by will. And I could lease it for life to a trusty homeless friend for another hundred years or give it to my son to live in. Humans can do this too, but the difference is that in Goblin society there is no selling of 'tangible items'. You can not buy anything from a Goblin only lease it. This is a society which is run by the builders, the craft maker etc. Despite all the glitter of Gringots, the Goblin society is a society of the proletariat. The workers rule. The carpenters and the masons and the metal-smiths own everything. Since all property at one time must be built or created. There are probably 'loans' in Goblins society but no mortgages. Since I don't think a bank can be said to have built a 'house.' A builder might need capital to buy supplies, but that capital does not seem to grant ownership to the bank. Unlike muggle banks Gringots must own owns very little except interest on loans. I wonder: 1. If the Goblins idea of property is one reason why JKR made it so that the wizards won't let them have wands. A Goblin Ollivander after all would think he owned all the wands he sold. And a Goblin spell-caster everything he cast into existence. 2. If the Goblins helped build Hogwarts. If Hogwarts is a 'goblin-maid school' then do they think they own Hogwarts. 3. Is there a human society with ownership rules anything like this. There must be. Any sociologists out there? DA Jones --------------------------------- Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From celizwh at intergate.com Sat Sep 1 16:47:22 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:47:22 -0000 Subject: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176530 Betsy Hp: > There's that big tree again. ;-) It's impossible for me > to overlook the exclusion of Slytherin house. Not after > Dumbledore has witnessed the evil that either its presence > at the school (going with the "Slytherins *are* bad" view > of the books), or its designation as Hogwarts' scapegoat > (going by how my personal view still insists on subverting > the text) caused so much pain in the WW. houyhnhnm: I don't think it's a matter of your personal view subverting the text. The contradictions are right there *within* the text. Over and over Rowling tells us one thing and shows something else. See below. lizzyben: > The text insists that Snape was becoming a dangerous > "Dark Wizard", but it doesn't actually show Snape using > magic to bully or hurt people. Instead, it actually > *shows* the Marauders using illegal hexes, curses, jinxes, > advanced restricted magic, and Dark magical items. So > who's the real "Dark Wizard" here? houyhnhnm: The "epitome of goodness" himself seems to have a penchant for projecting less than admirable Gryffindor traits onto Slytherin. He tells Harry at the end of CoS that Harry has characteristics Salazar Slytherin prized in his students including "a certain disregard for rules." When, pray tell do we *see* Slytherins betraying a disregard for rules? Draco sneaked out after curfew to find out what the Trio was up to in PS/SS. And Snape did the same with the Marauders. Those are about the only examples I can think of. The list of infractions committed by HRH and Marauders is too long to go into. I guess the difference between Slytherin and Gryffindor is the difference between a certain disregard for rules and a total disregard for rules. These are just a couple of examples in a long list of discepancies between what is told and what is shown that pervade the Harry Potter series. Up until the last book, I thought Rowling was engaging in some kind of sophisticated literary dialectic. Apparently not. From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 1 16:16:50 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:16:50 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176531 I can remember when the first two movies came out; people wondered if a love interest would develop between Hermione & Harry. Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with Ginny or is this a story line she developed along the way? As I'm discovering the books for the first time, I get the feeling that she planned for Harry to fall in love with Ginny from the first book. But I've only discovering the magic of the books, so what do I know. salo.krano From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 18:54:06 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 18:54:06 -0000 Subject: New to the Harry Potter Books In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176532 --- "salo.krano" wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm just a new convert to Harry Potter. As I've seen > the movies; I thought that I'd have no trouble > reading the final book, how wrong I was. > > I've now bought myself all the books, wishing that I > had started reading them earlier. > bboyminn: I'm having the same problem with my Sister and her son, my nephew. They both love to read, and are now sorry they didn't pay more attention in high school, and read more back then when it could have shaped their lives. They both love the HP movies, but seem very reluctant to read the books. I think partly it is because Harry Potter is so popular and they don't want to be seen as one more 'on-the-bandwagon' drone. I encouraged them to just read the first book. It is available in paperback for about $6 or $7, and I promised them that they would never find better entertainment value for their money. I mean really, where else can you get hours of entertainment for only $7. They are both big 'Eragon' fans, and I think there is an element of not wanting to let anything potentially challenge their love of Eragon. It's amazing how loyal people become to their favorite books. > salo.krano > > I've also found that I'm now completely hooked on > Harry Potter; and find myself asking if maybe J. K. > Rowling ... could maybe bring Harry back at an later > date. > > salo.krano > bboyminn: JKR said, in a sense, that Harry still visits her. She still sees him in the future going places, doing things, interacting with people, and perhaps even having an adventure or two. But it is like a phone call from an old friend. It's nice to catch up on what is happening, but there really isn't a story there. So, despite the fact that Harry lives on in JKR's mind, she will never write about him or any of the other characters again, UNLESS somehow a complete story wanders into her head, the way Harry himself wandered into her life, fully formed. It's not enough that Harry comes back to her in a paragraph or two, or a few pages here and there. He will never truly live again until he comes back to her as a full book of adventure, mystery, and intrigue. That could happen, she might be riding on a train one day, and suddenly out of the deep literary cosmos, the further adventures of Harry Potter or some other HP character will come to her. That IS possible, but as of right now, those revelations aren't there, so for now, the story of Harry Potter and friends has been told. But consider the possibility that if a whole book doesn't come to her, a short story might. I could conceive of JKR suddenly get an inspiration for some little short adventure of Harry's that could be published in a short story collection or a magazine. But again, until the inspiration strikes, the story doesn't exist. At the same time, I don't see her seeking out, or intending to write about Harry. Either the inspiration will come one day or it won't. In the mean time, she will write whatever other books come into her mind, and perhaps that's OK. Maybe it's time for Harry to 'live happily ever after'. Maybe he's already has enough adventure and danger for one lifetime. Steve/bboyminn From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 1 16:25:34 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 16:25:34 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: <2795713f0708311911h319cd04w1553c8bcc3bf5aef@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176533 Lynda: "I don't think Harry's going to name his kids Vernon, Marge, Dudley or Petunia" salo.krano: Will the names not have been chosen by Hermione? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 19:01:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:01:07 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176534 --- "salo.krano" wrote: > > I can remember when the first two movies came out; > people wondered if a love interest would develop > between Hermione & Harry. > > Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with > Ginny or is this a story line she developed along > the way? > > ... > > salo.krano > bboyminn: I think she always planned for Harry and Ginny. There are small hints in all the books, dropped along the way. But, I also think she intentionally held Ginny in the background and allowed he to live and develop separate from Harry. That why, when the beast of jealousy arises in Harry at the sight of Ginny snogging another boy, it is as much a shock to us as it is to Harry. I think the true /reveal/ of Ginny as a strong determined Weasley was planned from the very beginning. When Ginny was Ron's simpering younger sister, Harry didn't pay much attention, but when she is revealed as the strong character she truly is, I think Harry saw in her the perfect mate. Steve/bboyminn From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Sep 1 18:15:02 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:15:02 -0400 Subject: Heroes in the Harry Potter Series Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176535 "Carol, who sees mother love as the norm in the WW but father love as weaker and rarer, exemplified primarily by Mr. Weasley and briefly by James" And Xenophilius. (Whose name means 'lover of strange things', BTW.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Sep 1 18:38:46 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:38:46 -0400 Subject: Goblin's view on property Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176536 In real estate in the Muggle world there are similar concepts. If I sell you a life interest in a certain piece of land, then when you die it goes back to me, or if I am dead myself by then to my heirs; I (or my heirs) don't have to pay your estate back. You could sell it to a third party, but even so when you died it would revert to me or my heirs at no cost to us, for you would only have been able to sell YOUR LIFE INTEREST in the property. Now, this does not work with chattels, only with land, under our laws, but apparently under goblin law it does. 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 Sat Sep 1 18:48:46 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 14:48:46 -0400 Subject: Snape's Role/ dark magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176537 --Margaret Dean >: "As a side note, I tend to think that the classification of "Unforgivable" Curses is a legal one, kind of the equivalent of a Zero Tolerance policy in the "war on drugs." It doesn't necessarily have any deeper meaning than "getting caught using these without specific official sanction will land you in Azkaban." I've been toying with the idea that the Dark or Black spells can only be used to harm, and have no benign or neutral applications. That is why, for example, AK is Unforgivable, not any killing by magic. (Say, using WL to thrust a dagger into someone's heart. Definitely a crime--depending on the circumstances, either murder or manslaughter--but not as serious a one as using AK. WL has benign applications; AK does not. You could torture someone by using Augamenti to 'waterboard' him, but Aguamenti has legitimate uses--Crucio does not.) 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 19:21:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:21:01 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176538 > lizzyben: > > I've always had a suspicion that the Maruaders were pretty into "Dark > Magic" themselves. First of all, they created the Marauders Map, which > was a very sophisticated magical item. The Map seems to even think for > itself to a certain degree, just like Riddle's Diary - both respond to > questions w/written answers. The Map comes up w/insults for Professor > Snape, seemingly of it's own accord. Snape, the Dark Arts/DADA expert, > says that the Map is "full of Dark Magic," and he would know. > > Second, the Marauders all became Animagi, which is apparently also > very complicated magic that isn't taught at Hogwarts. How would they > learn how to do this? I'm thinking some visits to the "Restricted > Section" of the Hogwarts library - where Dark Arts volumes are stored. > Third, Lupin is a werewolf, which is a Dark creature. He's a nice guy, > a Gryfindor, and also a "Dark Magic" creature. Fourth, James & Sirius > use hexes, jinxes & curses w/abandon. They used an *illegal* hex to > swell another student's head to twice its normal size. Where'd they > learn all those "amusing" hexes? Some dusty old "Dark Arts" volume > that Sirius found in the library, or among his family's books, perhaps? > > All this combined, I'd say that the Marauders were pretty well- versed > in the "Dark Arts" while at Hogwarts. But of course James just *hated* > the Dark Arts, even though he used Dark Magic himself. So... this > really just means that he hated Slytherins, & Snape especially. Alla: No, it really does not mean that to me. It is your conjecture that Marauders Map and Animagi are dark magic, and as far as I am concerned it is not supported by canon. My opinion obviously. So, when James just hated Dark Arts that means to me precisely that - that he just hated Dark Arts. Of course it seems that jinxes and hexes Marauders used widely, just as Slytherins did, but using the jinx that has a minor touch of Dark Magic to me is not the same as being well versed in Dark Arts, like at all. And aren't animagi taught in Hogwarts, just later than Marauders learned how to do that? ( do not have PoA with me right now) I guess Mcgonagall is really into Dark Arts as well, by your definition. Again IMO. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 19:36:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:36:18 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176539 > > Alla: > > > I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both** money > > and property just seems so very **unfair** to me. > Goddlefrood: > > Is it odd for the Greeks to want the return of the Elgin > marbles, albeit they were obtained in possibly less than > legal circumstances? >> There are many artifacts that change hands for money and later > still get returned to their so called rightful owners. It happens > in the Pacific quite regularly with Whale's teeth. Basically what happens is > that at one time or another, quite typically in a ceremony, a > whale's tooth (or tabua in Fiji), is handed over or bought by > a visitor in an untraditional manner. > Anyway, once a tabua is discovered in the not right hands, > despite its often having been bought for cash or other exchange, > the original owners get right on to getting it back. There is in > the ownership of tabua no way for it to change *ever*, even when > traditionally exchanged, even then the tabua would be considered > to be only on loan until the donee died. > > Often the tabua will be recovered by the original owners and > there is certainly no question of any money that was ever paid > being refunded. > > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I believe you may > agree. Alla: Heeee, let me clarify I guess. First about Greeks - if they were obtained in perfectly legal circumstances, marbles I mean, then yeah I would find them wanting it back not exactly **odd**, but unfair in my POV you know? It is not that I do not get that I have to respect Goblin's view of property, it is that I do not think that I have to **like** it you know? Could you clarify about tabua, please? Do people who buy them **know** that they are doing the wrong thing? I got confused, sorry about that. Is it made clear that they are no supposed to get away from rightful owner? Are they allowed to be leased? Because yeah, if people who buy them know that they are only getting them temporarily, or not supposed to get them at all - totally different story to me. Again, this is not a question of respecting the customs foreign to me, it is a question of liking them, if that makes sense to me. It is the fairness question. I cannot help but think that what Goblins did with that was shamelessly taking advantage of the wizards, if wizards had no clue that they are supposed to only be leasing the items. NOW it is actually same with wands to me, but backwards. I think it is in no way, shape or form should be up to wizards to decide whether Goblins need wands. I think it should be up to Goblins to decide that and nobody else's. Oh, and of course before I get that question, regardless what I think of Goblins' view on property, it was of course wrong and not fair of Harry trying to double cross Griphokk. Just wrong, IMO. Does it make sense? Alla. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Sep 1 20:48:49 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 16:48:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Role/ dark magic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709011348l40bf9f12s7425381e45542340@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176540 Bruce Alan Wilson wrote : > > > I've been toying with the idea that the Dark or Black spells can only be > used to > harm, and have no benign or neutral applications. That is why, for > example, AK > is Unforgivable, not any killing by magic. (Say, using WL to thrust a > dagger > into someone's heart. Definitely a crime--depending on the circumstances, > either murder or manslaughter--but not as serious a one as using AK. WL > has > benign applications; AK does not. You could torture someone by using > Augamenti > to 'waterboard' him, but Aguamenti has legitimate uses--Crucio does > > . > ,_._,___ > Debbie: I'm with your logic as far as AK and Cruciatus are concerned. (To take your example, one could set the dagger to chopping vegetables instead of to kill someone.) However, it doesn't work with the Imperius Curse. Isn't it beneficial to use Imperio to stop someone from jumping off a cliff, or to stop someone from performing Crucio on someone else? (I assume this can be done, as Crouch!Moody apparently imperio'd Krum to use the curse.) The morality of the Imperius Curse seems to be much less clear-cut, as with other curses that are apparently Dark. To use your example again but to substitute Sectumsempra, why couldn't that be used to open the body for heart surgery? I also agree with Margaret Dean, who stated: "As a side note, I tend to think that the classification of "Unforgivable" Curses is a legal one, kind of the equivalent of a Zero Tolerance policy in the "war on drugs." It doesn't necessarily have any deeper meaning than "getting caught using these without specific official sanction will land you in Azkaban." Debbie: That would explain the inclusion of Imperius as one of the UCs. Convictions would be hard to get if anyone and everyone could raise the Imperius defense; the simplest thing to do would be to ban the use of the curse altogether. On the other hand, wizards tamper with one another's memories all the time, with devastating consequences (ask Morfin Gaunt what he thinks about it). Magical law enforcement would want to stamp out memory charms, and who knows what else, except for the fact that memory modification is essential to protecting wizards' secrecy. Debbie suggesting a campaign to rename the Imperius Curse the Imperius Spell [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 20:57:36 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 20:57:36 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176541 > Alla: > > No, it really does not mean that to me. It is your conjecture that > Marauders Map and Animagi are dark magic, and as far as I am > concerned it is not supported by canon. My opinion obviously. lizzyben: As you've acknowledged, the definition of "Dark Magic" is notoriously vague in this series. But, we know that whatever it is, Snape is an expert in it & the defense against it. So, if the expert says that the Map is "full of Dark Magic," I'm inclined to take his word for it. And there's more corraboration. Most people would agree that Riddle's Diary is "Dark Magic", correct? When Arthur Weasley finds out about the Diary, he tells Ginny how she should be able to recognize Dark Magic.: "Ginny!" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you anything. What have I always told you? Never trust anything that can think for itself if you can't see where it keeps its brain? Why didn't you show the diary to me, or your mother? A suspicious object like that, it was clearly full of Dark Magic." Now let's listen to Snape's diagnosis of the Marauder's Map: Snape pointed at the parchment, on which the words of Messrs. Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were still shining. An odd, closed expression appeared on Lupin's face. "Well?" said Snape. Lupin continued to stare at the map. Harry had the impression that Lupin was doing some very quick thinking. "Well?" said Snape again. "This parchment is plainly full of Dark Magic. This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do you imagine Potter got such a thing?" Lupin looked up and, by the merest half-glance in Harry's direction, warned him not to interrupt. "Full of Dark Magic?" he repeated mildly. "Do you really think so, Severus? It looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment that insults anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous? I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop?" Lupin is lying his head off here, of course. Not only about the makers of the item, but also about the *nature* of the item. Why? Does he know that the map's real function *does* use Dark Magic? Mr. Weasley & Snape even use the same phrase to diagnosis these objects - the item is "full of Dark Magic." Both items "think for themselves" and can respond to questions on their own. You can't see where either item "keeps its brain" or who is actually behind the item. Filch thought that the Map was a "suspicious item", just like Mr. Weasley says that the Diary was a "suspicious item." Based on Mr. Weasley's own criteria for recognizing "Dark" objects, the Maurader's Map qualifies as "Dark Magic". And let's look at how the two items work: Riddle's Diary: "Harry sat on his four-poster and flicked through the blank pages ... Excited, Harry loaded up his quill a second time and wrote, "My name is Harry Potter." The words shone momentarily on the page and they, too, sank without trace. Then, at last, something happened. Oozing back out of the page, in his very own ink, came words Harry had never written. "Hello, Harry Potter. My name is Tom Riddle. How did you come by my diary?" Marauder's Map: ""Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal!" Snape said, hitting the map with his wand. As though an invisible hand were writing upon it, words appeared on the smooth surface of the map. "Mooney presents his compliments to Professor Snape, and begs him to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business." Snape froze. Harry stared, dumbstruck, at the message. But the map didn't stop there. More writing was appearing beneath the first. " They work in almost the same exact way - someone asks a question or makes a comment, and the item responds with the personality of its maker. Both are seemingly blank, but writing appears when the object wishes to respond. There are a *number* of parallels here - are we really not supposed to notice these similarities? Alla: > So, when James just hated Dark Arts that means to me precisely that - > that he just hated Dark Arts. Of course it seems that jinxes and > hexes Marauders used widely, just as Slytherins did, but using the > jinx that has a minor touch of Dark Magic to me is not the same as > being well versed in Dark Arts, like at all. lizzyben: Uh-huh. James hated "Dark Arts", but used "Dark Magic" in the form of jinxes, hexes, and curses. The only definition we have for curses is that they are the "worst of dark magic," and we see James using curses. We see James creating a map that at least arguably uses Dark Magic. Based on every definition of Dark Magic in this series, James is using Dark Magic. Oh, but he just hates Dark Magic, & proves that by beating up Snape. Yeah, right. Even the defense here is hair-splitting - using a "minor touch of Dark Magic" is not the same as being well-versed in Dark Magic? Why not? We're never shown any other type of Dark Magic beyond these kinds of violent spells - curses, hexes, etc. And we know that James used those kinds of spells all the time - isn't he well-versed in them? Now, if you go w/my alternate definition of "Dark Magic" :), it isn't Dark when James does this because he isn't a Slytherin. That seems to be what the book is saying. I find the parallels fascinating, because they're *there*. In SWM, James does the exact same thing to Snape that the Death Eater does to Mrs. Roberts - lifting the victim into the air against their will, then flipping them over to show their underwear. Is one good & one bad? Fred & George nearly kill Montague by slamming him into a closet, in the same chapter where Harry sees James & co. tormenting Snape. If Gryfindors are really supposed to be "teh good" & Slytherins "teh evil", why are these parallels here at all? Alla: > And aren't animagi taught in Hogwarts, just later than Marauders > learned how to do that? ( do not have PoA with me right now) I guess > Mcgonagall is really into Dark Arts as well, by your definition. > > Again IMO. > lizzyben: McGonagall is a licensed Animagus, professor of Transfiguration. The Marauders are 15-year-old kids who learned how to use restricted magic. Who broke many rules in order to learn how to become Animagi, and then to secretly escape in Animagi form. How did they learn this? It isn't taught at Hogwarts. They had to have learned from books in the "restricted" part of the library. That's the "dark arts" section, as well - a good place to find some new amusing hexes. I can totally see the Marauders enjoying learning this kind of magic, along w/assorted curses & hexes, for fun. They would never associate that w/anything dangerous, because only Slytherins become "Dark Wizards" or Death Eaters. Except that, eventually, one of them became exactly that. lizzyben [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Sep 1 21:01:58 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:01:58 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176542 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > And aren't animagi taught in Hogwarts, just later than Marauders > learned how to do that? ( do not have PoA with me right now) Being an animagus isn't the same thing as Transfiguration. The former is rare - the only animagi we hear of are the Marauders, McGonagall and Rita Skeeter, and according to Hermione's research, there's only been seven in the 20th century [PoA, UK pb: 257] - and the Ministry regard it as a potentially dangerous or subversive ability, hence the need to register. Nor, it appears, is it easy - according to Lupin, it took Sirius, James and Peter three years to work out how to do it [PoA, UK pb: 259]. It's true that students learn that animagi exist in school - Hermione reports "doing them in class with Professor McGonagall" [PoA, UK pb: 257]. But there's no suggestion that the classes are practical - even in the WW, I doubt that a course that had only seven successful students in one hundred years would have stayed on the curriculum. It's always been suspected in fandom that Dumbledore was also an animagus, based on McGonagall's being one and on his having been Transfiguration teacher at the time of Hagrid's expulsion, but I don't think we ever found out for sure. > I guess Mcgonagall is really into Dark Arts as well, by your > definition. Well, she uses Imperius with alacrity. ;-) The question, though, is what counts as Dark Arts. It doesn't seem to be intent - there's plenty of examples of the White Hats using some pretty nasty magic for purely malicious purposes (which the reader is clearly expected to cheer); it doesn't seem to be who you learn it from - although Lupin says that he tried to convince himself that Sirius was getting into the school "using Dark Magic he learnt from Voldemort" [PoA, UK pb: 261], it makes no sense to suggest that Voldemort had invented Dark Magic. The only reading of "Dark Arts" that makes sense to this reader now is "magic done by the Black Hats". As I've said before, Quirrell seems to have been right: There is no good and evil - there is only power, and those too weak to seek it. This is not in itself an incoherent moral position - the world is full of things that are powerful and can be used for good or evil. But it is a position which six books had rejected. I think there's a deep flaw at the heart of the series: the author seems not to have worked out what exactly magic is in her world. I recall when HBP came out, there was all that kerfuffle about Pratchett criticising her for not having realised that she was writing fantasy (as she admitted in the 2005 Time interview*, although she claimed to be subverting the genre (she's not; he is)). I think perhaps this is what he meant - if you're constructing another universe, you need to work out how stuff works in it (or doesn't). Not that Pratchett is immune - The Colour of Magic is weak in precisely this way, though he learnt rapidly. The reader was misled, I think, by the talk of all the notebooks full of back-story and detail - we assumed (or at least I did) that they constituted the construction of an internally coherent world. They appear not to have - I can't for the life of me think why the question "What exactly is Dark Magic?" didn't occur to her, but I can't see the answer. My objection here isn't that she provided an answer I didn't like - it's that an answer doesn't seem to be possible. * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1083935-1,00.html) Mus From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 21:24:03 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:24:03 -0000 Subject: Winks and nods from JKR in DH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176543 Greetings all! I have been away from the main group since it reopened after the book release and I am frightfully behind the times so forgive me if a thread like this has already been started. I recently finished DH on cd and started the whole series over again with PS/SS. When Ron and Harry are caught in the devil's snare and Hermione is in a panic, Ron yells at her "Are you a witch or not!" This immediately made me think of the echoing comment Hermione makes to Ron as they are confronted with the whomping willow near the end of DH, "Are you a wizard or what!" This feels to me like a little wink and a nod from JKR to all her loyal readers. It also made me feel like the series really had come full circle in a sense and made me realize how much the characters have grown and yet have retained their individual personalities and quirks. Has anyone else noticed things like this as you have re-read the books? Cheers, Dondee From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 21:23:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:23:43 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176544 > lizzyben: > > As you've acknowledged, the definition of "Dark Magic" is notoriously > vague in this series. Alla: I said it is imprecise for me, not notoriously vague, so could we not make me acknowledge something I did not? If something does not translate in the valid categories for you, it does not mean that it cannot be valid for anybody else. Definition of Dark Magic in the series for me lacks mathematical precision, true. BUT I do not need it to be that strict. Despite minor inconsistencies, I have in my head clear enough picture of when the dark magic is dark. As I said, I know it when I see it, for me. To enjoy the story for me it is more than enough. Lizzyben: But, we know that whatever it is, Snape is an > expert in it & the defense against it. So, if the expert says that the > Map is "full of Dark Magic," I'm inclined to take his word for it. Alla: That is your right of course. I am most definitely NOT taking Snape's word for it. Lizzyben: > And there's more corraboration. Most people would agree that Riddle's > Diary is "Dark Magic", correct? When Arthur Weasley finds out about > the Diary, he tells Ginny how she should be able to recognize Dark > Magic.: > Now let's listen to Snape's diagnosis of the Marauder's Map: >> Lupin is lying his head off here, of course. Not only about the makers > of the item, but also about the *nature* of the item. Why? Does he know > that the map's real function *does* use Dark Magic? Mr. Weasley & > Snape even use the same phrase to diagnosis these objects - the item is > "full of Dark Magic." Both items "think for themselves" and can respond > to questions on their own. You can't see where either item "keeps its > brain" or who is actually behind the item. Filch thought that the Map > was a "suspicious item", just like Mr. Weasley says that the Diary was a > "suspicious item." Based on Mr. Weasley's own criteria for recognizing > "Dark" objects, the Maurader's Map qualifies as "Dark Magic". Alla: Really, Lupin **lies** here? And we know that how? I read that argument many times in the past - that Map is a dark object based on comparison with diary, actually. Arthur does NOT tell Ginny that it is a dark magic object because we do not see where it keeps its brain, doesn't he? He says never trust something like that and then says that it is full of dark magic, so I do not see it as definition. But say it is a definition. As far as I am concerned, we know now that map really has no brain **anywhere**, not that it is hidden somewhere, while diary clearly did have brain IMO. Diary had a piece of Riddle's soul and as far as we know Map has nothing of the kind. I think it is like portraits that have magical imprints of their makers. >Lizzyben: > And let's look at how the two items work: > They work in almost the same exact way - someone asks a question or > makes a comment, and the item responds with the personality of its > maker. Both are seemingly blank, but writing appears when the object > wishes to respond. There are a *number* of parallels here - are we > really not supposed to notice these similarities? Alla: And here I thought that they work in totally different way. Like diary would pour Ginny soul in it and vice versa and Map did nothing of the sort, was just insulting Snape and showing hidden passages. Oh well. To each their own. If you find any similarities between those two objects, except that they both talk, that is your right and prerogative. I do not. > lizzyben: > > Uh-huh. James hated "Dark Arts", but used "Dark Magic" in the form of > jinxes, hexes, and curses. The only definition we have for curses is > that they are the "worst of dark magic," and we see James using curses. > We see James creating a map that at least arguably uses Dark Magic. Alla: No, **we** do not. I see no dark magic in Marauders map anywhere close. You see it. > Alla: > > And aren't animagi taught in Hogwarts, just later than Marauders > > learned how to do that? ( do not have PoA with me right now) I guess > > Mcgonagall is really into Dark Arts as well, by your definition. > > > > Again IMO. > > > > lizzyben: > > McGonagall is a licensed Animagus, professor of Transfiguration. The > Marauders are 15-year-old kids who learned how to use restricted magic. > Who broke many rules in order to learn how to become Animagi, and then > to secretly escape in Animagi form. How did they learn this? It isn't > taught at Hogwarts. Alla: There is a quote upthread that it is taught in Hogwarts. But since I cannot check, I will leave it to uncertain for now. So, any piece of magic is dark if it is not taught in Hogwarts? Or is it only dark if Marauders learned it? Lizzyben: They had to have learned from books in the > "restricted" part of the library. Alla: They ** had have to**? Okay . From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 21:29:14 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:29:14 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176545 --- "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > In real estate in the Muggle world there are similar > concepts. > > If I sell you a life interest in a certain piece of > land, then when you die it goes back to me, or if I > am dead myself by then to my heirs; I (or my heirs) > don't have to pay your estate back. You could sell > it to a third party, .... for you would only have > been able to sell YOUR LIFE INTEREST in the property. > > Now, this does not work with chattels, only with land, > under our laws, but apparently under goblin law it > does. > > Bruce Alan Wilson bboyminn: Off on a tangent as usual. Periodically I look at real estate in London; you know, in case I win the lottery, and much to my surprise, I found that when you buy a flat in London, you do not actually buy a flat in London. Most of the real estate I've seen is sold with a 99 year lease, or the remaining balance of an original 99 year lease. THIS is a completely foreign concept to USA real estate buyers. To us, when you buy property, you own it forever; assume you don't default in some way. As to what happens at the end of 99 years, I'm not sure. Do you have the option to renew? Is the price for renewal cheaper than an outright 99 year lease? So many mysteries, so little time. Of course, even in the USA there are some exceptions. Frequently odd or unusual real estate deals are struck. For example, a person my live on the land for the rest of their natural life, at which time, by mutual agreement, the land will revert to the city, county, or state to be used as a historic site or as park land. Occasionally, these plots of land and buildings will be sold for $1.00. It is, in a sense, a means of donating the land to the 'people'. But still, the 99 year lease goes very much against my grain as an American. I have trouble spending many hundreds of thousands of pounds on something that, ultimately, I can't actually own. But this merely illustrates a point a made earlier. The Goblins continue to sell to wizards without resolving the nature of the transaction. They know full well the conditions that wizard set to transactions like this, and by continuing to sell, the Goblins are accepting the terms of an unspoken but commonly understood contract. By accepting the terms, they have, in effect, give up all future claims. Like I said, off on a tangent again. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 21:54:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 21:54:56 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176546 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Heeee, let me clarify I guess. First about Greeks - > if they were obtained in perfectly legal > circumstances, ... > bboyminn: Yeah, but what constitutes 'legal'. If the people pillaging the treasures of a foreign culture are also the people making or controlling the law, does that make it right? On the other hand, nearly every museum in the world is filled with treasures pillaged from other countries and cultures. So, at the time of that pillaging, they may not have done anything technically wrong. But, now today, when we are wiser, we do see this as wrong, and nearly every country makes it illegal to remove historical artifacts without the permission of the government. In addition, governments claim any unearthed treasures in full, and pay a percentage bounty on its recover. So, the indiscriminate pillaging and sale of artifacts in the past, has lead to new laws controlling such action in the present. > Alla: > ... > > Oh, and of course before I get that question, > regardless what I think of Goblins' view on property, > it was of course wrong and not fair of Harry trying > to double cross Griphook. Just wrong, IMO. > > Does it make sense? > > Alla. > bboyminn: Not trying to pick on you specifically, Alla, because several people have made the same point. First and foremost Harry DID NOT Double Cross or intent to Double Cross Griphook. Harry full and completely intended to give Griphook the Sword. Griphook merely failed to clarify the terms of said contract. Harry WAS going to give it to him, he just didn't specify when. If Goblins are a shrewed as the claim they are, then Griphook would have made the terms of the agreement crystal clear. However, I don't think Griphook cared about the terms because he fully intended to take the Sword and betray the agreement. Though clearly Griphooks betrayal is merely technical. He agreed to get them IN, but he didn't agree to get them OUT. A little detail that Harry didn't bother to clear up in the beginning. This is always true when dealing with magical creatures whether Leprechaun, Genies, or Sphinx. They always work the loopholes to their advantage. If a Genie grants you three wishes, you better think long and hard about every possible way you wish can be twisted against you, because if there is the slightest loophole, the Genie will twist it against you. The same is true between wizards and Goblins, you better make sure every last detail is worked out, or you may not get what you thought you bargained for. My central point is, that I get tired of people saying that Harry betrayed or Double Crossed Griphook. HE DID NOT. He fully intended to give the Sword. Griphook just made assumptions that were not in fact stated about when and were the Sword would be given. Never good to make a transaction based on assumptions as both Harry and Griphook discover. Steve/bboyminn From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 1 22:06:32 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:06:32 +1200 Subject: Snape's role Message-ID: <007601c7ece4$5b5ae290$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176547 Snape's role Ted: I totally agree with that there are many ways to interpret many of Snape's behaviors. It would be awfully hard to be kind to the son of your most despised enemy. Even more so if the mother was the woman you loved and lost. Harry's behavior toward Snape certainly didn't make it any easier. Both Harry and Ron learned with Kreacher that sometimes you reap what you sow when you treat people badly. It is also certainly necessary for Snape to keep up his image with the death eaters as well, but I never got the feeling that Snape truly got past his own selfishness and bitterness toward James and Harry. That's what makes it hard for me to see Snape heroically. Still, I agree with many of your points. I also think that Snape, more than any other character, helps demonstrate the power of love in this story. Angel I agree with everything you've said Snape had done yet disagree with your interpretation of the very same "acts". Snape's heroism is all the more poignant BECAUSE of his prejudices. In spite of such terrible and deep scars he fought for Harry, he saved Harry, risked life and limb for an ungrateful hateful Harry, who wore the face of Snape's arch nemesis and the saw Snape through the eyes of unrequited love/guilty conscience. Whatever hate Snape bore towards Harry was fully reciprocated despite having saved his life many times, Harry was not the least grateful. As for love, you can't possibly be arguing that sending the darkest deadliest hateful yet stupidest wizard to off someone's husband and child so you might have a chance with them could be construed as love could you??? Here is my view of Snape's role in the Potterworld. Without Snape there would not have been a Harry Potter. Funnily enough I don't think Rowling understands that yet, and it's interesting that there are plenty of other authors with the same internal myopia. In Snape's own words - (apologies no book at hand) When Snape came to enlist Dumbledore's help in saving the original trio (James, Lily, Harry) he spoke only about Lily and Dumbledore rebuffed that the prophecy spoke not of a woman. Snape's reply was - "that's why he think's it's her", because it was Snape who overheard the prophecy and Snape who delivered the faulted prophecy and Snape who inadvertently casted a hero out of Harry and brought about Voldemort's demise long before the initial rook was moved. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 22:02:03 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:02:03 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176548 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > > > As you've acknowledged, the definition of "Dark Magic" is > notoriously > > vague in this series. > Prep0strus: I think this is the main problem. It is very difficult to nail down. I, unlike a good number of posters, do not believe that Unforgiveables are simply a legal designation, and so find the good hat's use of them rather disturbing. But based on the first 6 books, I really feel we were lead to believe that dark magic was something quite different - something needed for horcruxes and unforgiveables, and different from everyday hexes - the wizarding world is a little more brutal in what it seems to accept as the norm than the real world, imo, and so i think some of those hexes can fit into that definition. But DH has so turned me around that I really don't have a good personal definition of dark magic. But I do disagree with many of the assumptions made about what 'must' be dark magic. > > > Lizzyben: > But, we know that whatever it is, Snape is an > > expert in it & the defense against it. So, if the expert says that > the > > Map is "full of Dark Magic," I'm inclined to take his word for it. > > > > > Alla: > > That is your right of course. I am most definitely NOT taking > Snape's word for it. > > Prep0strus: With Alla here. I am not taking Snape's word for it. I think he said that off the cuff to try to get his hands on something of harry's, to find out its secret, to make it seem like something he could confiscate. Also, I don't think he can make a 'diagnosis' that quickly. So I trust neither his words and motivation, nor his ability in this instance. > > > >Lizzyben: > > And let's look at how the two items work: > > > They work in almost the same exact way - someone asks a question or > > makes a comment, and the item responds with the personality of its > > maker. Both are seemingly blank, but writing appears when the > object > > wishes to respond. There are a *number* of parallels here - are we > > really not supposed to notice these similarities? > > Alla: > > And here I thought that they work in totally different way. Like > diary would pour Ginny soul in it and vice versa and Map did nothing > of the sort, was just insulting Snape and showing hidden passages. > Oh well. To each their own. If you find any similarities between > those two objects, except that they both talk, that is your right > and prerogative. I do not. > > Prep0strus: With Alla again here. I think it's ok to notice those similarities - but also the differences. The diary turned out to be a Horcrux. It attempted to come to life by taking over Ginny. Suspicion of the map in the beginning is one thing, but it turns out to be a tool, not to have motivations of its own. The insult mechanism, as Lupin says, sounds like something that could be picked up at a joke store. If you've ever conversed with a 'bot' on a chat device like AIM, it works similarly. It can pick up certain information from what is input, and reply with something that makes some amount of sense. The map having a protection so that it could not be used by inappropriate people - perhaps even ESPECIALLY Snape, seems quite likely. It's very impressive magic, even building and growing on itself by identifying the residents of Hogwarts in a way that I don't think we see any other person or object able to do in the entire series... if only the Ministry could track people so well in regards to underage magic and the like... but powerful, interesting, and funny don't equal 'dark'. It never attempts its own agenda, it is certainly not a horcrux, and we never see it in any way as 'evil', which I think, for the most part, is the meaning JKR wants us to think 'dark' has. The diary is something quite, quite different. > > > lizzyben: > > > > Uh-huh. James hated "Dark Arts", but used "Dark Magic" in the form > of > > jinxes, hexes, and curses. The only definition we have for curses > is > > that they are the "worst of dark magic," and we see James using > curses. > > We see James creating a map that at least arguably uses Dark Magic. > Prep0strus: I'm certainly very confused about the use of dark magic, and what it means. But, as you trust adult Snape, I trust teenage Lily when she does not think what the Marauders do is dark. And I do trust that the Young Death Eaters WERE experimenting with dark arts. Being in Slytherin at that time, it seemed to be the main activity. I don't know what 'dark' means, but i still believe they were doing it, and to be against them, meant to be against the dark arts. > > Lizzyben: > They had to have learned from books in the > > "restricted" part of the library. > Prep0strus: Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But restricted doesn't mean dark. And i don't know why it would have to be dark for kids to learn it, but light for adults. Restricted doesn't mean dark, and neither does 'hard'. Is there a shortcut that lets you do it if it's dark? I say, they learned how the same way any other wizard does - just before they were supposed to. Powerful, dangerous, restricted, even meanspirited doesn't mean dark. I don't know what does... but it's clear those don't. ~Adam From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 22:07:18 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:07:18 -0000 Subject: Snape's role In-Reply-To: <007601c7ece4$5b5ae290$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176549 > Angel > Here is my view of Snape's role in the Potterworld. Without Snape there > would not have been a Harry Potter. In Snape's own words - (apologies no book at hand) When Snape came to enlist > Dumbledore's help in saving the original trio (James, Lily, Harry) he spoke > only about Lily and Dumbledore rebuffed that the prophecy spoke not of a > woman. Snape's reply was - "that's why he think's it's her", because it was > Snape who overheard the prophecy and Snape who delivered the faulted > prophecy and Snape who inadvertently casted a hero out of Harry and brought > about Voldemort's demise long before the initial rook was moved. Alla: Without Snape the story of Harry's life would have been much different, very true and we would not have it as it was in the story we read. But without Snape, if we look at the story from within the story, ( in my mind meaning as if the characters as "real"), the "boy" named Harry Potter would still been born in that world. Except that boy would have a chance to grow up with mother and father and not to be a "Chosen one", would have a normal life, a family, possibly a godfather, who would never went to jail. Granted his parents could still die in the war OR NOT. They would not have to hide and use a Secret Keeper though. Somehow I think Harry would love his life to be without Snape shaping it as it turned out. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 22:40:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:40:31 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176550 > bboyminn: >> My central point is, that I get tired of people saying > that Harry betrayed or Double Crossed Griphook. HE DID > NOT. He fully intended to give the Sword. Griphook > just made assumptions that were not in fact stated about > when and were the Sword would be given. Never good > to make a transaction based on assumptions as both > Harry and Griphook discover. Alla: Steve, I love Harry's character dearly and I had in the past and will defend him against many of his alleged wrongdoings that I honestly do not see as wrongdoings at all. But oh I disagree with you here. I do not **care** if Harry just failed to specify the terms of the contract. My thing is that IMO Harry knew precisely that Goblin expected the sword to be delivered right after his service or help or whatever is done. I think Harry knew what Goblin expected and did not do it on purpose, which I may understand or not. But I think Harry was dishonest with Goblin in the same way I think Goblins were dishonest with human wizards, specifically with whomever they sold the sword. I get why Harry wanted to do that, but I still prefer him to be honest with Goblin and told him that no, he will not get the sword at least till all horcruxes are destroyed. And if Goblin refused to help, then so be it IMO. JMO, Alla (counts to five and disappears till tomorrow) From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 22:52:02 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 22:52:02 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property WAS : Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176551 > > > Alla: > > > > > I think you nailed it though - Goblins wanting **both** > > > money and property just seems so very **unfair** to me. > > Goddlefrood: > > > There are many artifacts that change hands for money and > > later still get returned to their so called rightful owners. . > > Basically what happens is that at one time or another, quite > > typically in a ceremony, a whale's tooth (or tabua in Fiji), > > is handed over or bought by a visitor in an untraditional > > manner. > > Often the tabua will be recovered by the original owners > > and there is certainly no question of any money that was > > ever paid being refunded. > > Not so very different from the Goblin attitude, I believe you > > may agree. > Alla: > Could you clarify about tabua, please? Do people who buy them > **know** that they are doing the wrong thing? I got confused, > sorry about that. Is it made clear that they are no supposed > to get away from rightful owner? Are they allowed to be leased? Goddlefrood: Quite simply it depends to whom they are sold or exchanged. The indigenous people *know* that they are only receiving the tabua temporarily. If it were a tourist then said tourist would not normally be informed of the fact that the owner would consider that the tabua should be returned later. There have been instances, one not so very long ago, whereby tabuas have turned up in museums in countries outside the Pacific. Six tabuas were discovered in the UK somewhere, having been bought or possibly removed many years ago. The traditional owners recognised them at once, and don't ask me how because they look much the same to me. There is a kind of rope attached to the whale's tooth and that is probably unique to the family, tribe or individual original owner is my best guess on that aspect. Once these six tabuas were recognised as belonging to a particular clan this clan notified the museum where they had been and the same were actually returned after some diplomatic manoeuvering. To put this into goblin terms, and there is a recognisable difference, in that there is no explanation as to whether an artifact considered to belong to goblins by goblins belongs to an individual goblin or to a group of them or indeed even to the race of goblins, your basic goblin, let's call him Griphook, as JKR did, says that a certain item belongs to a goblin because it was made by goblins. There is no indication as to whether the goblin attitude to goblin made items has been widely made known to human wizards. If it has then there would be some culpability on the part of the human taking over the lease (from a goblin perspective) of the item in question. If not then the goblins really only have themselves to blame. IIrc in LotR the dwarves have a similar attitude. On the whole it seems illogical, however, the explanation above and in my preceding posts would make perfect sense to a Fijian, and, of course, to a goblin. Whether it is right is another matter, again it would be right to a goblin. I merely offer the example of the whale's tooth as a way to see the goblin point of view in respect of ownership. At least they have the consolation of keeping some, if not most, of the goblin made items in the vaults at Gringotts even if those vaults are leased by wizards and witches. The goblins probably see it as the vaults belonging to them and also whatever's inside. Whichever witch or wizard thought of letting the goblins run Gringotts may well have had this in mind when they did so. It would appease the goblin sensibility a little, or it would in my opinion. Goddlefrood, not siding with either goblins or the wizarding world on this one, just trying to explain the goblin outlook, despite being more concerned about leprechauns ;-) From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat Sep 1 22:46:20 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 15:46:20 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] New to the Harry Potter Books In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <655615811.20070901154620@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176552 salo.krano: sk> I'm just a new convert to Harry Potter. As I've seen the movies; I sk> thought that I'd have no trouble reading the final book, how wrong I sk> was. Dave: Welcome to the list! I must admit I'm very interested in the POV of someone who started with the films, as I've never been sure if someone who hadn't read the books could make any sense of the movies, given how much is left out, especially from the _Goblet of Fire_ film. So I gather you haven't read _Half-Blood Prince_ yet? You must have been *really* confused by those Horcrux thingys then! :) salo.krano: sk> I can remember when the first two movies came out; people wondered if a sk> love interest would develop between Hermione & Harry. sk> Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with Ginny or is this a sk> story line she developed along the way? Dave: Many fans think Chris Columbus (director of the first two films) was an H/H shipper, and possibly in denial of the book evidence for R/H. The _PoA_ and _GoF_ films, though, show plenty of R/H stuff, such as Hermione crying on Ron's shoulder when they think Buckbeak is dead, and preserving their post-Yule Ball spat. I think it's safe to say that Jo always planned Ginny for Harry and Ron for Hermione. Dave, noting that while many of us speculated Snape/Lily all these years, the only ones who knew for certain were Jo and Alan Rickman! From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 1 23:03:16 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:03:16 -0000 Subject: Of Sorting and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176553 lizzyben > Snape dies, and is left in the shack as worthless. How we never see > any sign that Snape gets an afterlife (unlike the Elect). How Snape > is never given forgiveness or absolution before his death. He is, > still, judged by the Author as unworthy. > > > Basically, I've just been trying to figure out if Snape gets to go > to heaven. And based on the cosmology of the Potterverse, it seems > like the answer is no. That breaks my heart, for real. > I don't think JKR intended to give us that message, as the main message of the books is that it is the choices we make that define us rather than who we are. But by faiing to give a 'closure' for Snape I think she perhaps unintentionally (I hope) has given it. I too have been struggling with a 'broken heart' over Severus Snape. As a young man he made 'bad' choices a)joining the death eaters b)telling Voldenort about the prophecy. But there was clearly repentance for those. He went to Dumbledore at first in clear expectation that his reward might have been to be killed by him. ..'Don't kill me'.. It may have been a flawed repentance to begin with but he persisted with it after Lily's death, when with all hope gone he could have settled for suicide and a quick end to his pain. But he did not, he accepted the requirement of restitution for his crimes with a lifetime of service to Dumbledore and of all the characters seems to have paid the highest price for his 'salvation'. His hell was served on earth in the years of fear and isolation as he carried out his role as 'double agent'. Bear in mind too that he was only 21 when Lily and James were killed. His isolation which was made almost total when he was force to kill Dumbledore in service of the ultimate defeat of Voldemort. For by that act he cut himself off from the 'good' side and spent the final year of his life in the 'dark'. His life for that last year must have been a bleak one of living in fear of both sides but still trying to complete his mission, help Harry to complete his and protect the students from the worst of the Death Eaters. There is a wonderful poem called 'Duet for One' which sums up what his state of mind must have been. You can find it at http://www.fanfiction.net/s/3513345/1/Duet_for_One It made me cry but in the words of another Wizard 'I will not say 'Do not weep' for not all tears are evil'. allthecoolnamesgone From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 23:08:20 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:08:20 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176554 > Alla: > > I said it is imprecise for me, not notoriously vague, so could we > not make me acknowledge something I did not? If something does not > translate in the valid categories for you, it does not mean that it > cannot be valid for anybody else. Definition of Dark Magic in the > series for me lacks mathematical precision, true. BUT I do not need > it to be that strict. Despite minor inconsistencies, I have in my > head clear enough picture of when the dark magic is dark. As I said, > I know it when I see it, for me. To enjoy the story for me it is > more than enough. > lizzyben: So, you know Dark Magic when you see it. That's pretty much the standard we're left with. Alla: > That is your right of course. I am most definitely NOT taking > Snape's word for it. lizzyben: That's your right as well. But whether Snape is telling the truth or not, it at least raises the possibility that the map is Dark Magic, and since the definition is so imprecise, there's no way to know for sure. > Lizzyben: > > And there's more corraboration. Most people would agree that > Riddle's > > Diary is "Dark Magic", correct? When Arthur Weasley finds out about > > the Diary, he tells Ginny how she should be able to recognize Dark > > Magic.: > > > Now let's listen to Snape's diagnosis of the Marauder's Map: > > >> Lupin is lying his head off here, of course. > > Alla: > > Really, Lupin **lies** here? And we know that how? lizzyben: Because the Map isn't a Zonko's joke item, like Lupin claims? Honestly, I don't see how anyone can claim that Lupin isn't lying about that. He sees the Map he created, w/his nickname on it, and tells Snape that the parchment is a joke item that Harry bought at Zonko's. That's a lie. He even glances at Harry to warn him not to tell Snape the truth about the Map. Alla: > I read that argument many times in the past - that Map is a dark > object based on comparison with diary, actually. > > Arthur does NOT tell Ginny that it is a dark magic object because we > do not see where it keeps its brain, doesn't he? He says never trust > something like that and then says that it is full of dark magic, so > I do not see it as definition. But say it is a definition. As far > as I am concerned, we know now that map really has no brain > **anywhere**, not that it is hidden somewhere, while diary clearly > did have brain IMO. Diary had a piece of Riddle's soul and as far > as we know Map has nothing of the kind. I think it is like portraits > that have magical imprints of their makers. lizzyben: The Map did seem to have a brain in that it could come up w/original answers to people's questions. It also helped Fred & George to come up w/the password to get the Map to work. But I guess the portraits have a brain too - maybe the difference is that you can clearly see which wizard is behind the talking item, while it isn't so clear w/the Map & Diary. Here again, it's sort of impossible to know for sure what items are "Dark", since we aren't really given a definition of a Dark item. You know it when you see it, & different people will have different opinions on the matter. > > lizzyben: > > > > Uh-huh. James hated "Dark Arts", but used "Dark Magic" in the form > of > > jinxes, hexes, and curses. The only definition we have for curses > is > > that they are the "worst of dark magic," and we see James using > curses. > > We see James creating a map that at least arguably uses Dark Magic. > > > Alla: > > No, **we** do not. I see no dark magic in Marauders map anywhere > close. You see it. lizzyben: Even if you don't believe that the map is dark magic, under JKR's own definition, curses are dark magic. So how is it not dark magic when James uses a curse? > Alla: > > There is a quote upthread that it is taught in Hogwarts. But > since I cannot check, I will leave it to uncertain for now. So, any > piece of magic is dark if it is not taught in Hogwarts? > > Or is it only dark if Marauders learned it? lizzyben: I'll defer to Mus's post - it isn't taught at Hogwarts, only 7 are known to exist in 100 years, it's considered potentially subversive by the Ministry. It's not necessarily "Dark" (which we have no set definition of anyway), but it's certainly illegal, restricted magic. > Lizzyben: > They had to have learned from books in the > > "restricted" part of the library. > > Alla: > > They ** had have to**? Okay . lizzyben: Where else could they have learned? Only 7 animagi in 100 years, the skill isn't taught at Hogwarts - where are they getting this knowledge? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 23:20:04 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:20:04 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176555 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > >> My central point is, that I get tired of people saying > > that Harry betrayed or Double Crossed Griphook. HE DID > > NOT. He fully intended to give the Sword. Griphook > > just made assumptions that were not in fact stated about > > when and were the Sword would be given. Never good > > to make a transaction based on assumptions as both > > Harry and Griphook discover. > > > Alla: > > Steve, I love Harry's character dearly and I had in > the past and will defend him against many of his > alleged wrongdoings that I honestly do not see as > wrongdoings at all. > > But oh I disagree with you here. I do not **care** > if Harry just failed to specify the terms of the > contract. My thing is that IMO Harry knew precisely > that Goblin expected the sword to be delivered > right after his service or help or whatever is done. > > I think Harry knew what Goblin expected and did not > do it on purpose, which I may understand or not. > > But I think Harry was dishonest with Goblin in the > same way I think Goblins were dishonest with human > wizards, specifically with whomever they sold the > sword. > > I get why Harry wanted to do that, but I still > prefer him to be honest with Goblin and told him > that no, he will not get the sword at least till all > horcruxes are destroyed. > > And if Goblin refused to help, then so be it IMO. > > JMO, > > Alla bboyminn: Once again, just so we are clear, I wasn't attacking you or your opinion personally. Several people have made references to Harry Betraying Griphook. Occasionally, they will qualify it by adding that Harry did intend to give the Sword, but that doesn't erase an out and out accusation of betrayal. Which I believe is false. As to your later point, I agree, as I read that, in my mind, I was just begging Harry to sit down with Griphook and explain everything, or at least, explain as much as Griphook needed to know to realize that he would indeed eventually get the sword. So, on that aspect we agree. But this is the way it always is in business transactions, if you fail to specify or understand the terms, you do so to your own detriment. That's just life. If Griphook REALLY wanted to know when the Sword would be handed over, he should have asked that that be stated specifically in the agreement. If Harry wanted Griphook to get him OUT as well as IN, then he needed to make sure that was specified, not assumed. I think what Griphook really wanted was Harry to agree to give him the Sword, once Harry had done that, Griphook knew he would take the Sword when and were he wanted independant of Harry's wishes. But still it meant something to him that Harry would actually agree. He further knew full well that Harry had struck a bad bargain. That Harry too was making assumptions that were never stated and never actually agreed upon. So, really, my sympathy for Griphook is limited. Clearly though, Griphooks technicalities were based on a clear intent to betray Harry. Harry's technicalities we truly just that, technicalities. He fully intended to live up to his side of the bargain...at some point in time. Griphook also intended to live up to his part of the bargain, but only as specifically stated in the agreement. Still, Harry would reasonably assume that getting IN implied getting OUT, but not so with the naturally devious Griphook. Wrong as they both were, I see Harry as far less at fault, and Griphook as far more devious and corrupt in his actions regarding this agreement. Fault by both, but Griphook's faults and action are far worse in my book. I'm not excusing Harry. I think he should have been honest and 'up front'. But, in my mind, Griphook's betrayal was far worse than Harry's. Steve/bboyminn From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 23:46:11 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:46:11 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176556 > Prep0strus: > > I think this is the main problem. It is very difficult to nail down. > I, unlike a good number of posters, do not believe that > Unforgiveables are simply a legal designation, and so find the good > hat's use of them rather disturbing. But based on the first 6 books, > I really feel we were lead to believe that dark magic was something > quite different - something needed for horcruxes and unforgiveables, > and different from everyday hexes - the wizarding world is a little > more brutal in what it seems to accept as the norm than the real > world, imo, and so i think some of those hexes can fit into that > definition. But DH has so turned me around that I really don't have a > good personal definition of dark magic. But I do disagree with many > of the assumptions made about what 'must' be dark magic. lizzyben: That's really my main point. I'm not trying to be difficult (maybe a little), but mostly just pointing out how these terms are not defined or explained at all. Yet the *connotation* remains - if it's Dark, we assume it must be evil. If someone's using "Dark Magic", we assume they must be evil as well. And yet, w/o a definition, it starts to look like the *only* real distinction is in who is using this magic - if it's a designated Good Guy, it's OK; if it's a designated Bad Guy, it's dark magic. > Prep0strus: > > With Alla here. I am not taking Snape's word for it. I think he said > that off the cuff to try to get his hands on something of harry's, to > find out its secret, to make it seem like something he could > confiscate. Also, I don't think he can make a 'diagnosis' that > quickly. So I trust neither his words and motivation, nor his ability > in this instance. lizzyben: Could be. Or maybe he was telling the truth, or maybe making an assumption. Is it possible Lupin was involved in dark magic? IMO, yes. It's his area of expertise as a DADA professor, after all. But w/o a real understanding of what dark magic actually is, it's no fun to debate it. It becomes a personal, individual interpretation. > > Prep0strus: > > With Alla again here. I think it's ok to notice those similarities > but also the differences. It's very > impressive magic, even building and growing on itself by identifying > the residents of Hogwarts in a way that I don't think we see any other > person or object able to do in the entire series... if only the > Ministry could track people so well in regards to underage magic and > the like... but powerful, interesting, and funny don't equal 'dark'. > It never attempts its own agenda, it is certainly not a horcrux, and > we never see it in any way as 'evil', which I think, for the most > part, is the meaning JKR wants us to think 'dark' has. The diary is > something quite, quite different. lizzyben: No doubt, the diary is more *evil* than the map. But I'm talking about "Dark Arts" as a supposedly separate branch of magic - w/special spells, items, & techniques that can be taught in a class. And here the map seems to have definite similarities w/the "Dark Magic" diary. The items seem to work in a similar way, and were perhaps created w/similar techniques & spells. It's certainly different than anything Harry & co. learn at Hogwarts. The Map isn't made using transfiguration, potions, DADA... so what branch of magic was it created with? Dark Arts, maybe? :) > Prep0strus: > > I'm certainly very confused about the use of dark magic, and what it > means. But, as you trust adult Snape, I trust teenage Lily when she > does not think what the Marauders do is dark. And I do trust that the > Young Death Eaters WERE experimenting with dark arts. Being in > Slytherin at that time, it seemed to be the main activity. I don't > know what 'dark' means, but i still believe they were doing it, and to > be against them, meant to be against the dark arts. lizzyben: I believe Lily meant what she said, but I'm still confused. JKR has stated that hexes, jinxes & curses are "minor Dark Magic," and we see the Marauders using hexes, jinxes & curses. So how can Lily say that they don't use dark magic? Snape is confused too, & here I don't blame him. Probably the young Death Eaters were more sinister, since they became Death Eaters and all - but what would that mean? We don't even know what the "Dark Arts" *are*. I see a lot of conflation here, where James & co. are against dark magic & transfer that to Slytherins. They hate Slytherins & transfer that to "dark magic". It all gets bunched together as the "other" is associated w/everything evil. > Prep0strus: > Powerful, dangerous, restricted, even mean-spirited doesn't mean dark. > I don't know what does... but it's clear those don't. > > ~Adam > lizzyben: So what is it then? If mean-spirited, violent, aggressive spells aren't dark, if even unforgiveable curses aren't dark - what is dark then? Why are we supposed to hate the Slytherins for using "dark magic" when we don't even know what that is, or how it's any different from what our guys are doing? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 1 23:58:40 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2007 23:58:40 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176557 Prep0strus wrote: I am not taking Snape's word for it. I think he said > that off the cuff to try to get his hands on something of harry's, to > find out its secret, to make it seem like something he could > confiscate. Also, I don't think he can make a 'diagnosis' that > quickly. So I trust neither his words and motivation, nor his ability > in this instance. ,snip> Carol responds: I think we can safely grant Snape's ability to detect Dark magic given the scene with the ring Horcrux in "the Prince's Tale" and DD's statements about Snape's knowledge of the subject. He really is a Dark Arts expert (and he's sneering a bit about Lupin's supposed "area of expertise," knowing, I'm pretty sure, that he's more of an authority on most aspects of DADA with the possible exception of minor Dark creatures). Whether he really thought that the map had Dark magic in it was another matter. His concern at the moment is not catching Harry with an object that will get him in trouble. He's concerned that the object will get him into Hogsmeade, where he might encounter the man that both Lupin and Snape think betrayed the Potters and is out to murder Harry. Moreover, snape has called in Lupin for a reason--not because of his expertise in DADA but because he suspects him (rightly) of being one of the manufacturers. He also suspects that Lupin, whom he believes to be in league with Sirius Black, has himself given Harry the map--to get him into Hogsmeade. Snape is partly right and partly wrong. The map does show a way into Hogsmeade and Lupin is one of the manufacturers. Lupin is also concealing important information about Black. He is not, however, directly aiding him or helping him get into the school, and he has not given Harry the map. He lies to Snape about the map being a Zonko's product; oddly, both Snape and Harry know he's lying but neither says anything. Harry, in fact, seems to approve the lie as it gets him off the hook with Snape. At any rate, we can't take what Snape says about the map's containing Dark Magic at face value here because of the Lupin/Snape subtext. Neither fully trusts the other. Snape has, in fact, excellent reason for his mistrust, considering that Lupin is Black's old friend and has not stopped him from getting into the school and endangering the students. Lupin doesn't want to admit to Harry that he's one of the manufacturers, merely stating that he knows them. Whether Lupin has any reason to distrust Snape, who is preparing his wolfsbane potion perfectly and watching out for Harry, is unclear. Perhaps he still retains his old dislike or thinks, based on Neville's fear of Snape, that Snape is "bullying" the Gryffindors. At any rate, IMO, it's Lupin who's chiefly in the wrong in that scene. Snape's "Dark magic" comment is probably either a dig at him or an attempt to ferret out information about the map. Carol, who has to get offline because of a thunderstorm and consequently can't supply canon or repair any flaws in reasoning in this post From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 00:24:49 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 17:24:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Inbreeding of Witches and Wizards In-Reply-To: References: <4FDA1CE8F5BE43C88437A1C303BAB739@Home> Message-ID: <2795713f0709011724i1a2f9954s982091c2ebd3122c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176558 Mellanie: I think it's sometimes hard for us in the States to understand how pervasive an influence school is in British society. JKR modeled Hogwarts after the British public (that would be private to us here in the US) school system. Lynda: Perhaps it is for some. For me personally, two of my three closest friends I attended school with. One was my college roomie for four years (we went to a five year school--30 mandatory units of Bible) and the other I went through public school with through high school. My third close friend is nine years younger than me. I was her babysitter in the church nursery when we were both kids. Now I'm her kids babysitter when she comes into town to run around with her sister. When she and I run around, my mother babysits. But I do understand the school ties thing. Several of my friends married right out of high school and there were a couple who were together during and after high school who stayed together until one of the partners passed away. Three cheers for rural communities are in order, I guess. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 2 00:40:01 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:40:01 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176559 Potioncat: For all the plot holes, flints, and major turn-arounds in the HP series, there is something that JKR does well. She writes scenes that read one way the very first time you read them; take on a deeper meaning after the book is finished and you look back or re-read; and become very different after the next books are read. The Marauders' Map discussion between Snape and Lupin is one such scene and it's been discussed a lot! Here's some recent comments about it: > > Lizzyben: > > But, we know that whatever it is, Snape is an > > > expert in it & the defense against it. So, if the expert says that > > the Map is "full of Dark Magic," I'm inclined to take his word for it. > > Alla: > > That is your right of course. I am most definitely NOT taking > > Snape's word for it. > Prep0strus: > > With Alla here. I am not taking Snape's word for it. I think he said > that off the cuff to try to get his hands on something of harry's, to > find out its secret, to make it seem like something he could > confiscate. Also, I don't think he can make a 'diagnosis' that > quickly. So I trust neither his words and motivation, nor his ability ?? in this instance. Potioncat: Carol made a very good argument for in the past for this scenario: (in my words) Snape's goal during Harry's 3rd year at Hogwarts is to protect him from Sirius Black. Snape has every reason to believe that Black had betrayed the Potters and now wants to kill Harry. Snape has just found Harry out of bounds and in possession of an enchanted piece of parchment which identifies itself with the names of Mooney, Padfoot, Prongs and Wormtail. Snape doesn't know what it does, but he knows who used those nicknames. One of the four is currently the DADA professor and has been hired by DD to help protect Harry. (I think that's canon.) Snape summons Lupin to discuss the parchment. He and Lupin are talking in code. They both know who made it, but neither wants Harry to know. So, Snape may have said it contained Dark Magic to explain why he was calling upon Lupin. As DADA professor, it would be Lupin's job to deal with it. Harry is kept in the dark (oh, nice pun.) Although I've wondered about the Dark Magic accusation in the past, I've pretty much agreed that Snape only used that as an excuse. After all-- -this is Harry's Dad, who hates Dark Magic. Lupin will go on to give it back to Harry. It can't be Dark. But, now that DH is past us, I'm not so sure, whether it is or not; but Snape may very well consider this to be Dark Magic. It seems none of us, and especially not Snape, can tell the good guys from the bad guys just by their magic. >From a subsequent post: lizzyben: Because the Map isn't a Zonko's joke item, like Lupin claims? Honestly, I don't see how anyone can claim that Lupin isn't lying about that. He sees the Map he created, w/his nickname on it, and tells Snape that the parchment is a joke item that Harry bought at Zonko's. That's a lie. He even glances at Harry to warn him not to tell Snape the truth about the Map. Potioncat: And this was one reason some of thought that James's family owned Zonkos. Potioncat, wishing everyone else would quit posting so fast so she could have a chance and knows some of her ideas were posted by others even as she typed! From dreadr at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 00:51:32 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 00:51:32 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176560 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: >> Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with Ginny or is this a > story line she developed along the way? > > As I'm discovering the books for the first time, I get the feeling that > she planned for Harry to fall in love with Ginny from the first book. I also felt that JKR intended all along for Ginny and Harry to end up together. To me, Harry-Hermione never felt right together (although, I know that there were a lot of shapers our there who felt very differently. Ginny just always struck me as the perfect balance for Harry and the fact that she was a very strong person and witch in her own right was just another point in her favor. Just my opinion. Debbie > From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 02:57:47 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 02:57:47 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176561 "salo.krano": > > I can remember when the first two movies came out; people wondered if a > love interest would develop between Hermione & Harry. > > Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with Ginny or is this a > story line she developed along the way? > > As I'm discovering the books for the first time, I get the feeling that > she planned for Harry to fall in love with Ginny from the first book. > > But I've only discovering the magic of the books, so what do I know. > > salo.krano > Lisa: Your feeling is correct -- indirectly, anyway. I don't really recall any specific statements about Harry & Ginny, but I do recall her saying that Harry and Hermione have always had a brother-sister kind of relationship, and Hermione was always destined for Ron. Lisa From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 06:11:35 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 23:11:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709012311gb8fae14h47cf205f2cf1e36@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176562 I knew from my first reading of the first book that Harry and Ginny would fall in love. As well as Ron and Hermione. Its the way she wrote the characters from the beginning that clued me in. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 2 06:44:29 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:44:29 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176563 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: Alla: > > No, it really does not mean that to me. It is your conjecture that > > Marauders Map and Animagi are dark magic, and as far as I am > > concerned it is not supported by canon. My opinion obviously. lizzyben: > Now let's listen to Snape's diagnosis of the Marauder's Map: > > Snape pointed at the parchment, on which the words of Messrs. > Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were still shining. An odd, > closed expression appeared on Lupin's face. > "Well?" said Snape. > Lupin continued to stare at the map. Harry had the impression that > Lupin was doing some very quick thinking. > "Well?" said Snape again. "This parchment is plainly full of Dark > Magic. This is supposed to be your area of expertise, Lupin. Where do > you imagine Potter got such a thing?" > Lupin looked up and, by the merest half-glance in Harry's > direction, warned him not to interrupt. > "Full of Dark Magic?" he repeated mildly. "Do you really think so, > Severus? It looks to me as though it is merely a piece of parchment > that insults anybody who reads it. Childish, but surely not dangerous? > I imagine Harry got it from a joke shop?" > > Lupin is lying his head off here, of course. Not only about the makers > of the item, but also about the *nature* of the item. Why? Does he know > that the map's real function *does* use Dark Magic? Mr. Weasley & > Snape even use the same phrase to diagnosis these objects - the item is > "full of Dark Magic." Both items "think for themselves" and can respond > to questions on their own. You can't see where either item "keeps its > brain" or who is actually behind the item. > Marauder's Map: > ""Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to > yield the information you conceal!" Snape said, hitting the map with his > wand. > As though an invisible hand were writing upon it, words appeared > on the smooth surface of the map. > "Mooney presents his compliments to Professor Snape, and begs him > to keep his abnormally large nose out of other people's business." > Snape froze. Harry stared, dumbstruck, at the message. But the map > didn't stop there. More writing was appearing beneath the first. " > > They work in almost the same exact way - someone asks a question or > makes a comment, and the item responds with the personality of its > maker. Both are seemingly blank, but writing appears when the object > wishes to respond. There are a *number* of parallels here - are we > really not supposed to notice these similarities? Geoff: I have seen the thought expressed that whether a spell of some sort is dark depends on its use - that some magic used widely can be turned to the wrong use and may not be inherently dark. On this question my mind turned to a real world parallel and I thought of the Marauders' Map as a kind of Hogwarts' SatNav system. Its basic function is to show information as to the whereabouts of a person. This is not wrong. We know, for example, that Harry's exploration of the Map out of curiosity revealed the fact that Peter Pettigrew was still alive and hence the fact that Sirius was innocent of his murder. This is hardly dark. We also know that Harry did use the Map to try to spy on Draco's movements. Is this dark - or plain nosiness? And the message to Snape? Looking at a real world SatNav system, these have pre-programmed responses built in which are linked to the information requested. Perhaps the Map has magic included to trigger these rather adolescent replies. After all, it didn't react until Snape had announced to the Map who he was and he Map picked up on this information to include in its reply. This to me suggests that the Map was in a different league to the Diary which, being a Horcrux, was a dark object by definition. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 06:52:13 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 06:52:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176564 > lizzyben: > > Yet the *connotation* remains - if > it's Dark, we assume it must be evil. If someone's using "Dark > Magic", we assume they must be evil as well. Mike: Nope. I don't assume "dark" necessarily equates to evil. It can be evil but can be just everyday nasty. It's a matter of degrees for me. And someone can use some of these "Dark Magic" spells for less than evil purposes. So I don't "assume that they must be evil" either. > lizzyben: > And yet, w/o a > definition, it starts to look like the *only* real distinction is > in who is using this magic - if it's a designated Good Guy, it's > OK; if it's a designated Bad Guy, it's dark magic. Mike: Actually, that's about as good of a definition as JKR has bothered to present to us. Although she has had the occasional "good guy" perform Dark Magic. > lizzyben: > > Or maybe he [Snape] was telling the truth, or maybe making an > assumption. Is it possible Lupin was involved in dark magic? Mike: Or maybe Snape knew perfectly well who made that Map and knew that he was talking to one of the "Manufacturers". And maybe he thought it was a map that allowed Harry to sneak into Hogsmeade and wanted to confront Lupin with the evidence thinking Lupin had given Harry that map because Lupin was in cahoots with Black. I think a reasonable reading of canon would show all of that to be true. And Snape thought the map has as much "dark magic" in it as the suits of armor, which also laugh at students gaffs. BTW, if we used Mr Weasley's definition without criticality, then a whole host of items become imbued with "Dark Magic", including the Ford Anglia that Arthur bewitched himself and, oh by the way, the Sorting Hat. (Which many on this list might agree *is* Dark) ;) > lizzyben: > > But I'm talking about "Dark Arts" as a supposedly separate > branch of magic - w/special spells, items, & techniques that > can be taught in a class. And here the map seems to have > definite similarities w/the "Dark Magic" diary. The items seem > to work in a similar way, and were perhaps created w/similar > techniques & spells. Mike: The only thing I see the diary and the map have in common is the written word, they aren't even made from the same material. (Map from parchment, the diary from Muggle, commercial paper) The map is just that, a map, and can plot beings on it. The diary is memories and a Horcrux which communicate with a person that writes in it. Snape didn't write on the map. The diary can't tell where anyone is in the school. The map reveals itself when a password phrase is used and blanks itself likewise. The diary vanishes everything written into it, after a fashion, including the words it produces itself, with no control from the user. Enough said. > lizzyben: > The Map isn't made using transfiguration, potions, DADA... > so what branch of magic was it created with? Dark Arts, maybe? :) Mike: Umm, how about Charms? In fact, just about exactly the definition. > lizzyben: > > I believe Lily meant what she said, but I'm still confused. JKR has > stated that ... Mike: I've said before that I'm not counting anything that is not actually written in the books as what constitutes canon. I offer an example from JKR's website: :: What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? :: When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to :: put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it :: was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided :: will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else. Mike: Does that sound like what she wrote in DH? No. IMO, canon is what has been written in the books and everything else, like the Black Family Tapestry, is only useful when it doesn't conflict with canon. That is NOT the case with JKR's non-canonical definitions of hexes, jinxes, curses, etc. > lizzyben: > So how can Lily say that they [Marauders] don't use dark > magic? Snape is confused too, & here I don't blame him. Mike: That's not the way I read it. Snape knew perfectly well what was dark, he was trying to deflect criticism of his buds. > lizzyben: > We don't even know what the "Dark Arts" *are*. Mike: But the characters do. There doesn't seem to be any confusion amongst them. > lizzyben: > I see a lot of conflation here, where James & co. are against dark > magic & transfer that to Slytherins. They hate Slytherins & > transfer that to "dark magic". It all gets bunched together as > the "other" is associated w/everything evil. Mike: I see you conflating James & Co.'s prank magic with "dark magic", but I don't read that in the books. Lily said different when she clearly wasn't friends with James & Co. I never heard Snape dispute this. Either with Lily or later with Harry when he should have made that point if it was there to be made. > lizzyben: > > So what is it then? If mean-spirited, violent, aggressive spells > aren't dark, if even unforgiveable curses aren't dark - what is dark > then? Why are we supposed to hate the Slytherins for using "dark > magic" when we don't even know what that is, or how it's any > different from what our guys are doing? Mike: All I can suggest is a common sense approach. When someone uses a spell for school boy pranks, something that won't have lasting *physical* effects, we shouldn't read that as Dark, imo. I say physical because trying to judge emotional is way too subjective and takes into account way too many variables that cannot be assigned simply to the spell. OTOH, magic which has sinister consequences appears to be classified as Dark. There also seems to be the added elemant of intent thrown in there. So, it would seem that a memory charm could be used for Dark purposes, if it were used in the way Crouch Sr used on Bertha or Tom Riddle used on Morfin. Finally, we are suppose to "hate the Slytherins" because JKR set them up as the "bad guy" house from book/day 1. YMMV, but I think that it is just as simple as that. Any attempts to shoehorn this series into a more complicated moralistic story will meet with frustration, imo. And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys is a denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to terms with personally. Mike, who has no problem accepting the Slytherins as the bad guys but takes into consideration Voldemort and his kin's influence on the house going all the way back to the namesake founder. And therefore figures that with that influence gone, the house has a chance for moderating that bad guy image. From nboja at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 05:46:00 2007 From: nboja at yahoo.com (nboja) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 05:46:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's role In-Reply-To: <007601c7ece4$5b5ae290$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176565 > Angel: > In Snape's own words - (apologies no book at hand) When Snape > came to enlist Dumbledore's help in saving the original trio > (James, Lily, Harry) he spoke only about Lily and Dumbledore > rebuffed that the prophecy spoke not of a woman. ---Well let's not forget when he was passed the memory from Snape; in there he sees Snape upset over the fact that Harry must die and Dumbledore asks him what is this you actually do like the boy. I think he loved him but hated the fact that he looked like his father, the man who stole his one true love. nboja From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 2 09:26:55 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 05:26:55 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's age. Message-ID: <002901c7ed43$67bc64a0$a6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 176566 zanoodasaid: >>Now that it turns out that DD was born in 1881, the whole thing is more believable, IMO. If DD was 115 when he died in 1996, there would be something like 9-10 years difference between him and Muriel, right? She was a little girl when Ariana died, but at least she was born already :-)! I'm just glad that at least one DH inconsistency is down!<< Unfortunately, it only makes it worse as she has already stated, in 2000, that he was about 150 years old. Making up new stuff now, because she made mistakes in the past, doesn't solve the problem that she didn't make up the backstories right in the first place. Just like Grindelwald's death in DH contradicts a confirmation JKR made, in 2005, that he died in 1945, and that he died in 1945 for a specific reason: "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm I have totally lost faith in JKR as a writer. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 2 10:19:14 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 10:19:14 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age. In-Reply-To: <002901c7ed43$67bc64a0$a6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176567 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > zanoodasaid: > >>Now that it turns out that DD was born in 1881, the whole thing is more believable, IMO. If DD was 115 when he died in 1996, there would be something like 9-10 years difference between him and Muriel, right? She > was a little girl when Ariana died, but at least she was born already :-)! I'm just glad that at least one DH inconsistency is down!<< > > Unfortunately, it only makes it worse as she has already stated, in 2000, that he was about 150 years old. Making up new stuff now, because she made mistakes in the past, doesn't solve the problem that she didn't make up the backstories right in the first place. > > Just like Grindelwald's death in DH contradicts a confirmation JKR made, in 2005, that he died in 1945, and that he died in 1945 for a specific reason: "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli-3.htm > > I have totally lost faith in JKR as a writer. > Renee: Then this is probably not going to help: If DD died at the end of Harry's sixth year, 1996 ought to be 1997. From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Sun Sep 2 11:18:51 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:18:51 -0000 Subject: New to the Harry Potter Books In-Reply-To: <655615811.20070901154620@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176568 Hi Dave, Yes I wished I'd started with the books first, but at the time everyone was calling it a children's book (funny how books such as Disc World, Lord of The Rings & Harry Potter are all classed as children's books), so this put me off a little. I've just finished reading the Philosopher's Stone and have now started on the Chamber of Secrets. I like the idea that Harry stayed with Ron & his family for a few weeks and not as the movie depicts him leaving for Hogwarts the same day he was rescued from the Dursleys. I guess the good thing about reading the books after the movies is that I'm not let down by them. But no doubt I will be when I view the sixth & seventh film. SK PS I was expecting that Harry would maybe turn out to be the new Defence Against the Dark Arts Teacher, when taking his children to start the new term at Hogwarts. **Elf Note** Please discuss the books in response to this post. If any members wish to discuss future movies then kindly use this sister site: http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Movie/ Thanks muchly The List Elves From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 14:00:46 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:00:46 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts (Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176569 >Geoff: >This to me suggests that the Map was in a different league to > the Diary which, being a Horcrux, was a dark object by definition. zgirnius: Indeed, it would appear that the Horcruxes, the (related) potion/magic that recreated Voldemort's body, and Inferi are the only magic we could say for sure is "the Dark Arts", because they never were endorsed or used by any white hats. Harry used Crucio, he and Minerva used Imperius, Harry used Sectumsempra (even after knowing its fuction), Dumbledore endorsed the use of Avada Kedavra by Snape, and everyone and their cousins uses jinxes, hexes, and curses. Yet we have characters flagged for their supposed obsessions with the Dark Arts (Harry despises Draco for his, just as we are told James despised Severus for his). Neither Snape nor Draco at any point in their careers are shown as having an interest in Horcruxes or creating Inferi, however. What I take away from this, myself, is that all the magic I brought up to date *is* Dark, down to the teeniest, most amusing little jinx. Rowling said so on her website, and her statements are consistent with, and would to an extent be logically deducible from, the text. There is no logical flaw in the magical foundations of the Potterverse regarding what is Dark. So in particular, James and Sirius were adept and frequent users of Dark Magic as schoolboys. So is Harry, though his use is more judicious in my view. Draco also knows and uses his Dark Arts. Severus was an expert who created new spells of this type. His pal Mulciber was another person who used them. All the good guys who go about looking down their noses at those greasy Dark Arts obsessed oddballs? Hypocrites, up to a point. The real life equivalent that springs to mind is the Western democracies who gripe about human rights violations in assorted dictatorships around the world. Not that they are wrong to do so, human rights violations are bad things that should be griped about and prevented whenever possible, and some of those dictatorships violate them to an appalling extent with appalling frequency. But the hands of those complaining are not squeaky clean either. So when Sirius thought Severus was 'into the Dark Arts', he was not actually saying that Severus knew or did things that are materially different from things Sirius knew and did (except that his knowledge may have been prodigious for an eleven-year-old). Sirius was making assumptions that this knowledge and interest would lead Severus to make different choices than Sirius's regarding the Voldemort war. At age eleven, these assumptions were based more on prejudice due to looks/House preference/other factors than any knowledge he had of Snape's personality and interests. (Nil, early on). From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 14:11:18 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:11:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age. In-Reply-To: <002901c7ed43$67bc64a0$a6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176570 > CathyD: > Unfortunately, it only makes it worse as she has already stated, in 2000, that he was about 150 years old. Making up new stuff now, because she made mistakes in the past, doesn't solve the problem that she didn't make up the backstories right in the first place. zgirnius: I find that it might be easy to misspeak when trying to say "115", and end up saying "150" instead. The words differ only by the presence of a final consonant sound in the former, in English. >CathyD: > Just like Grindelwald's death in DH contradicts a confirmation JKR made, in 2005, that he died in 1945, and that he died in 1945 for a specific reason: "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on." http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2005/0705-tlc_mugglenet-anelli- 3.htm zgirnius: Your mileage may vary. But it seems to me that whether Dumbledore killed, or merely defeated, Grindelwald in 1945, is a choice Rowling should have been free to make while writing DH, just as she decided to spare Arthur in OotP. I am sure GW was dead, in her original outline, hence the interview response back in the day. She probably decided, while writing DH, that she wanted the point clearer, that Voldemort was wrong to kill Snape in so many different ways, so having the wand pass without a murder/killing several times made more sense. From dwalker696 at aol.com Sun Sep 2 14:52:45 2007 From: dwalker696 at aol.com (dwalker696) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:52:45 -0000 Subject: Winks and nods from JKR in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > Has anyone else noticed things like this as you have re-read > the books? > > Cheers, Dondee I love this, I was hoping someone would start a post like this! I noticed quite a few things when I read DH. Of course the book is heavily laden with references to past occurences and memories from previous books, but what I really enjoyed were the winks to situations and occurences in real life! For instance, I love how "Tales of Beetle the Bard" is referred to a few times with a bit of an air, that it's only a simple children's book...hmmm, we do we know any other "children's books" that are in fact quite a bit more than that? I apologize for a lack of textual evidence, but I am off to search for it now. One moment I seem to remember, where Ron chastises Hermione either for reading "Beetle" or for putting too much stock in it, and she protests "Dumbledore left me that book!" (ie, so it must be important). I also couldn't help notice quite a bit of what could be construed as winks in some of the text regarding Rita Skeeter. JKR has been fodder for British tabloids, so the whole Rita deal certainly rings true for readers. But as far as a specific wink, from DH US edition, pg 23, "Her nine-hundred-page book was completed a mere four weeks after Dumbledore's mysterious death in June. I (Betty Braithwaite) ask her how she managed this superfast feat." My take on this is a possible wink on flack JKR received for the long delay between POA and GOF, and the length of GOF itself. Certainly the number of pages of GOA was much discussed, still is rather, even by JKR herself, see her recent Dateline interview. (As a side note, I love the interviewers name - Braithwaite - kind of a mix of "waiting" for the next book with "baited breath", "holding your breath" while you "wait") I would love for other winks and nods to get listed, and I am off to try to find more, I thought they were so fun. Donna From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 2 14:48:22 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 10:48:22 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's age Message-ID: <001d01c7ed70$4fb5e7f0$04c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 176572 Renee: Then this is probably not going to help: If DD died at the end of Harry's sixth year, 1996 ought to be 1997. Yes, Renee, I caught that too, but I just can't keep up with all of her mistakes in time to send one e-mail to the list. It is absolutely nuts. If I was that bad in math (and I probably am close) and was writing a book that depended upon mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc., I would have at least one person close to me who was very, very good at math, double and triple checking everything I wrote. Instead, JKR comes up with lines like this: "There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can't." to excuse her lack of interest in keeping it all correct. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Sun Sep 2 16:12:07 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:12:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176573 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > zgirnius: > I find that it might be easy to misspeak when trying to say "115", > and end up saying "150" instead. The words differ only by the > presence of a final consonant sound in the former, in English. va32h: Yes, and when a husband works late every night of the week and comes home smelling of cheap perfume, he might have simply taken a second job in a cheap perfume factory. But not likely. JKR got lazy - that's the simplest explanation, and as such the one most likely to be true. It's not entirely her fault - fandom placed FAR too much emphasis on her interviews. More from Petunia, Harry's green eyes, a person doing magic late in life...these were all blown completely out of proportion by fans; one sentence or phrase extrapolated into some kind of "promise" by JKR to build a massively significant plot point around them. And then there is the greatest and grandest HP myth of all - that every single aspect of the series was planned in excruciating detail from Day One. I have never understood why people believe this. JKR says herself that she had an outline, but adjusted the details as she went along. On her own website, you can READ chapters and plotlines that she discarded or changed - she acknowledged having to radically revise GOF. So I don't blame JKR entirely -- but for her part, she did seem to enjoy giving cryptic answers to (we now see were) irrelevant questions and enjoying the resultant fan frenzy. Many television programs employ interns to patrol the internet and see what the fans are saying about their shows. JKR might have been well served to do something similar...then she could have nipped some of the hysteria in the bud. JKR either forgot what she'd said earlier or changed her story as she wrote it -- neither are a crime. But I'm still calling it lazy, because it is lazy. When an author wants something to happen in her story that can't happen because of what she's already written she has three options: discard what she wants to happen, pretend that what already happened didn't happen, or come up with a solution that allows both situations to happen believably. The third option takes the most effort - and I just don't believe that JKR cared enough to invest that effort in DH. va32h From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 2 16:48:07 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:48:07 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the MOM (Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176574 > Betsy Hp: > Why? All I'm saying is that key members of the MoM were willing to > fight Voldemort, did their best to do so, and Dumbledore did not > work with them. It's what JKR wrote. Jen: I was responding to the part about why Dumbledore made a complete split with the MOM in WWII. After re-reading sections in GOF, now I'm not so sure it was entirely principles about the justice system so much as what Dumbledore believed would defeat Voldemort. Some of his principles coincided with beliefs about what would defeat Voldemort, just not exactly how I remembered it *sigh*. Responding to the actual events, Dumbledore did appear to be working with Crouch; at least, he's sitting beside him in all the Pensieve scene trials. The underlying reasons for his complete split with the MOM in WWII are already brewing though: The MOM is vulnerable to infiltration and Dumbledore has a problem with the Dementors: 'Ah I was forgetting...you don't like the Dementors, do you, Albus?' said Moody, with a sardonic smile. 'No,' said Dumbledore calmly, 'I'm afraid I don't. I have long felt the Ministry is wrong to ally itself with such creatures.' (GOF, chap. 30, p. 511, UK ed.) There's no exact information why Dumbledore started the Order in WWI other than it was a secret society of people fighting Voldemort. My conjecture is it had to do with the state of the MOM in 'disarray' and in danger of takeover. Sirius said Voldemort's first goal when he returned was to build up his army again because: 'He's certainly not going to try to take on the Ministry of Magic with only a dozen Death Eaters." It makes sense to me that was also LV's goal in the first war since they expect him to do that in WWII, and that Dumbledore started the Order as a back-up resistance should the Ministry fall. Magpie: > The Dementors, iirc, left Azkaban to join Voldemort--again, he got > rid of them, not Dumbledore or society. Dumbledore worked with them > as guards of Azkaban. Do we know they're not guards at Azkaban > anymore? They're working at the MoM in DH, maybe they still are > afterwards, only not under DEs. I don't recall getting rid of them > being any main objective of Dumbledore's. Jen: I was including the information from the Bloomsbury chat: Steph: Will azkaban still use dementors? J.K. Rowling: No, definitely not. Kingsley would see to that. The use of Dementors was always a mark of the underlying corruption of the Ministry, as Dumbledore constantly maintained. > Betsy Hp: > Right. The WW is brutal and dark. Of course the MoM is too. But > where was Dumbledore? For quite a while we're told that Fudge was > wrapped around his little finger (as per PS/SS) and we have nothing > to show that Dumbledore put much effort into questioning the above > behaviors. (Their continued existence either meant Fudge wasn't > all that well wrapped or that Dumbledore just made little comments > from time to time. I suspect the latter.) Jen: Mr. Weasley's take on it is Fudge 'in the early days of his Ministry was forever asking Dumbledore for help and advice' because he saw DD as the more clever and powerful wizard. (OOTP, chap. 5, p. 89, UK) As Fudge became more confident and seemingly 'fond of power' he convinced himself he had better ideas than Dumbledore. I took that to mean Dumbledore's advice followed his general principles on the best way to operate the Ministry and Fudge started to disagree. BetsyHp: > Again, the MoM is brutal and dark, just like the world they serve. > But we are given glimmers that suggest, to me anyway, that if > Dumbledore had *channeled* his ambition, rather than fled from it, > he could have achieved a great deal. Been more of an Abe Lincoln > than a John Brown. (Though of course, Dumbledore was neither of > those men as he was quite happy with the human pecking order of his > world.) Jen: I agree with the part about channeling his ambition but don't really read that he was happy with the human pecking order. Or maybe I don't understand that part - you mean the pecking order of humans over beasts/beings or the pecking order of humans with each other? If you're coming from the perspective of the Slytherins being on the bottom of the human pecking order, I don't read that intepretation and don't see that Dumbledore did either, given the evidence in the story for why he believed Voldemort gained power both times. I think that's your point, that DD was wrong not to see that the Sorting and Slytherin house were the real problem. It's just that we don't see eye-to-eye on that one. BetsyHp: > He's the proverbial good man who, doing nothing, allows evil to > flourish. (Literally, where Tom Riddle is concerned.) Jen: I forgot to address this part last time. There wasn't anything wrong with Dumbledore giving Riddle a chance to turn over a 'fresh leaf' as DD called it, when Riddle became part of the magical community. Especially since 'he showed no sign of outward arrogance or agression at all...he seemed polite, quiet and thirsty for knowledge. Nearly all were most favourably impressed by him.' (HBP, chap. 17, p. 337, UK) I felt like Dumbledore was proving there that he thought Riddle could change, especially once he found his rightful place in the magical world and received proper training. In retrospect it's easy to say DD should have told more people about what he saw at the orphanage or handled the situation differently, but there's nothing wrong with giving the boy a second chance to change if he appears to be taking that chance seriously, imo. > Betsy Hp: > Heh. Yes, in these books the best thing you can do for your cause is die. Nice message, JKR. Though wasn't Dumbledore's vacuum filled > with the stumbling Harry Potter? Wasn't that why Harry insisted on > not getting help from anyone but Ron and Hermione (though he wasn't > all that forthcoming with them either)? Because only he, Harry, > could do anything? Anyone else would just screw things up? Jen: As I see it, she's saying the best thing you can do when your time is up is leave behind those who will take up the fight in your absence. That's repeated from the beginning, when James/Lily die to keep Harry alive; when DD dies and leaves behind Snape, the Order and the Trio; when Harry 'dies,' leaving behind R/Hr, Neville, and everyone fighting inside the castle. As to the second part, lol, well no surprise I don't agree. Dumbledore left behind everyone who believed in what he believed in, including Harry with a mission that he believed Harry was uniquely qualified to finish. DD also left Snape behind carrying out his mission, which was crucially important for protecting the students at Hogwarts and secretly helping the Order and Harry. He left behind the teachers, members of the MOM who believed as he did, Order members, etc., with their own various missions pertaining to their expertise. Magpie: > The differences of culture were put aside very momentarily to kill > Voldemort--there's no indication anybody was putting any effort > into building a new society after that. A temporary "we love Harry" > moment doesn't actually address any other issues that keep them > apart in peacetime. Voldemort gave them a common enemy. Some > groups sided with him, and some against him. Jen: I guess again this is how one reads the story. It ended on a high note, the defeat of Voldemort, but the only reason Voldemort was defeated in the end was that people came to believe it was possible to stand together, something that didn't occur in the first war or with Grindelwald or presumably if there were other Dark Lords back there. That was a new occurence, a unity brought about by common cause but also a belief that even those who are oppressed have power if they band together rather than sticking safely within their own groups. > Betsy Hp: > There's that big tree again. ;-) It's impossible for me to > overlook the exclusion of Slytherin house. Not after Dumbledore > has witnessed the evil that either its presence at the school > (going with the "Slytherins *are* bad" view of the books), or its > designation as Hogwarts' scapegoat (going by how my personal view > still insists on subverting the text) caused so much pain in the WW. Jen: This is a simplicfication but I see it pretty much the same as you talking about Dumbledore channeling his ambition in the right way: if Slytherins choose to channel their ambition and money (since at least the most prominent ones we met have that resource) into true good deeds rather than offering bribes, or backing good legislation rather than something like Muggle-hunting (Black relative), then they can change from the inside out. There's no more chamber to be associated with now, Voldemort isn't around to infiltrate the house - the opportunity is there. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 16:57:17 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:57:17 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts (Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176575 > zgirnius: > What I take away from this, myself, is that all the magic I brought up > to date *is* Dark, down to the teeniest, most amusing little jinx. > Rowling said so on her website, and her statements are consistent with, > and would to an extent be logically deducible from, the text. There is > no logical flaw in the magical foundations of the Potterverse regarding > what is Dark. > > So in particular, James and Sirius were adept and frequent users of > Dark Magic as schoolboys. So is Harry, though his use is more judicious > in my view. Draco also knows and uses his Dark Arts. Severus was an > expert who created new spells of this type. His pal Mulciber was > another person who used them. > > All the good guys who go about looking down their noses at those greasy > Dark Arts obsessed oddballs? Hypocrites, up to a point. lizzyben: Yeah, it's hypocrisy - hypocrisy that runs right through the novel, and right through the series. Without a good definition of the distinction, it becomes hypocritical for our heroes to hate someone solely for using dark magic. And sometimes I get the feeling that we never got a definition because the actual function of dark magic isn't important. What's important is who is using it. Dark Arts becomes associated w/Slytherin house, Durmstrang, Sirius' creepy family - people who are different and foreign and odd. And the connotation of "Dark Magic" makes us feel really good about hating it; almost self-righteous about hating it. Dark Magic is evil, right? (When they do it, not when we do it.) So when we hate these people, take revenge against these people, use violence against these people, we don't have to feel bad about it - we can actually feel very good & self-righteous about it. Normally, you would feel bad about hurting someone, but when that person is a "Dark Wizard", you can feel like it's actually justified as part of a larger battle between good vs. evil... and you are now on the side of good. When Harry tells Sirius about SWM, Sirius tries to come up w/something to assure Harry that his father was a good man. And he doesn't talk about how James loved Lily & Harry (which he undoubtedly did), or how he cared about Muggle rights; no, Sirius talks about what James hated. James *hated* the Dark Arts, and this hatred proves that he was a good person. Hatred, not love, shows your own goodness. You can prove your goodness in how much you hate "the other", the Darkness. Associating the bad guys w/"Dark Magic" just gives us another good reason to hate them. And IMO that's the real function of dark magic in the novels. lizzyben From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 2 16:58:33 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 2 Sep 2007 16:58:33 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/2/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1188752313.9.73825.m37@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176576 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 2, 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 16:59:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:59:25 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic / Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176577 > Mike: > I've said before that I'm not counting anything that is not actually > written in the books as what constitutes canon. I offer an example > from JKR's website: > > :: What happens to a secret when the Secret-Keeper dies? > > :: When a Secret-Keeper dies, their secret dies with them, or, to > :: put it another way, the status of their secret will remain as it > :: was at the moment of their death. Everybody in whom they confided > :: will continue to know the hidden information, but nobody else. > > Mike: > Does that sound like what she wrote in DH? No. IMO, canon is what has > been written in the books and everything else, like the Black Family > Tapestry, is only useful when it doesn't conflict with canon. That is > NOT the case with JKR's non-canonical definitions of hexes, jinxes, > curses, etc. Alla: Sadly, I think you are right again Mike. I say sadly not because it saddens me when you are right, quite the contrary :) I say sadly because I used to take a lot of what JKR says as at least secondary canon in the interviews. I already changed my stance a bit as to interviews where I suspect she improvises, etc. But I was thinking that when she writes things on her website, she has a chance to think them over a bit more. Ooops. Besides the example of what you brought up, here is another one, which IMO clearly contradicts what she wrote in DH. " Q. Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative of some description A. No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody Harry meets say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin." Alla: I mean, if she would have stopped with defusing " Voldemort Harry's father/grandfather", I would have seen nothing contradictory", BUT we know that Voldemort and Harry are related now, no? Oy. So, I am not sure yet about whether I will completely disregard her hexes/jinxes having minor dark magic in it, but I definitely may. I pretty much have the same dark magic definition as you do otherwise. But even if I were to go with hexes and jinxes, I still see a major differences between using them and what supposedly Snape's pals did to Mary for example. Lily sounded too horrified instead of amused for me. Mike: > Finally, we are suppose to "hate the Slytherins" because JKR set them > up as the "bad guy" house from book/day 1. YMMV, but I think that it > is just as simple as that. Any attempts to shoehorn this series into > a more complicated moralistic story will meet with frustration, imo. > And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys is a > denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is > unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to > terms with personally. > > Mike, who has no problem accepting the Slytherins as the bad guys but > takes into consideration Voldemort and his kin's influence on the > house going all the way back to the namesake founder. And therefore > figures that with that influence gone, the house has a chance for > moderating that bad guy image. > Alla: Am leaving all of that unsnipped on purpose to say that I agree with every single word you wrote here. It is to me indeed as simple as that. IMO of course. zgirnius: > Indeed, it would appear that the Horcruxes, the (related) potion/magic > that recreated Voldemort's body, and Inferi are the only magic we could > say for sure is "the Dark Arts", because they never were endorsed or > used by any white hats. Harry used Crucio, he and Minerva used > Imperius, Harry used Sectumsempra (even after knowing its fuction), > Dumbledore endorsed the use of Avada Kedavra by Snape, and everyone and > their cousins uses jinxes, hexes, and curses. > > Yet we have characters flagged for their supposed obsessions with the > Dark Arts (Harry despises Draco for his, just as we are told James > despised Severus for his). Neither Snape nor Draco at any point in > their careers are shown as having an interest in Horcruxes or creating > Inferi, however. Alla: Right, that is if you limit Dark Magic to Horcruxes or Inferi. If you expand Dark Magic to majorly hurting other people, then I say we get a different picture. Like, sure for example I think Harry used Sectusemptra as in using Dark magic, since Draco was hurt in a major way. I think Harry was justified doing it, but IMO it was a Dark magic. Only to twist Mike's words a little bit, I would call it Dark magic with intent to defend himself if that makes sense. An aside about much debated bathroom scene. I still as I said think that Harry was on complete defensive here - he did not even use Sectusemptra right away, BUT with changed attitude towards unforgivables in book 7, the scene loses , I don't know some "passion" to me? I used to think that here Harry was defending himself from major evil ( one of three Unforgivables). Now I just think that he was defending himself from dangerous curse. Zgirnius: >> So in particular, James and Sirius were adept and frequent users of > Dark Magic as schoolboys. So is Harry, though his use is more judicious > in my view. Draco also knows and uses his Dark Arts. Severus was an > expert who created new spells of this type. His pal Mulciber was > another person who used them. Alla: Or maybe Mike is right and JKR did not really mean to call hexes and jinxes having a touch of Dark magic? Because I still do not remember James and Sirius using a curse that hurt anybody in a major way and I definitely believe Lily. I mean, was Snape hurt badly after Pensieve scene? I don't know. I am dying to read enciclopedia. I am guessing that she would finally put some definition in, although as I said for the most part it does make sense to me. Like, for example Harry and Draco I say certainly used Dark magic, I mean, intent or not, Unforgivables still seem dark to me,maybe in a less monumental way? James and Sirius, well, I really do not know about that. IMO of course. Snape, um, most definitely IMO with his pal Mulciber. Zgirnius: > All the good guys who go about looking down their noses at those greasy > Dark Arts obsessed oddballs? Hypocrites, up to a point. Alla: Either that OR what they used were not dark magic, but instead JKR making things up on the fly. Or maybe what they used was less serious dark magic. I mean, if JKR would meant to stress that hexes and jinxes are big, nasty dark magic, do you think she would have called them amusing? CathyD: > Yes, Renee, I caught that too, but I just can't keep up with all of her mistakes in time to send one e-mail to the list. It is absolutely nuts. If I was that bad in math (and I probably am close) and was writing a book that depended upon mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc., I would have at least one person close to me who was very, very good at math, double and triple checking everything I wrote. Instead, JKR comes up with lines like this: "There are three kinds of people in this world. Those who can count, and those who can't." to excuse her lack of interest in keeping it all correct. Alla: Well, but does it depend on mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc? Books I mean? I mean, we all know JKR cannot count by now, but believe it or not, till I read another mathematical inconsistency here, I **never** notice it, and it never stops me from enjoying the story. I respect that it annoys people, but did JKR even **meant** to put story in the definite time frame, till fandom asked her about it and started calculating timelines? She was originally asked about whether we can use Nick's death day as valid point for calcularion, right? Or something like that? I am not sure I remember. As I said, I am just not sure that JKR places as much importance on the dates as we do. My reasoning is that I know I do not. :) I do not care what age DD was and how it compares with Muriel's age, for example. Muriel for me was just that a minor nuisance who appeared and dissappeared right away. I did not think of her character much. Just saying. I am really bad with numbers of course :) > > bboyminn: > > Once again, just so we are clear, I wasn't attacking > you or your opinion personally. Alla: Yes, Steve I know that :). If I thought you were attacking me, I would have asked you ;). And there is nothing wrong with attacking my **opinion** by the way :) Steve: >> I'm not excusing Harry. I think he should have been > honest and 'up front'. But, in my mind, Griphook's > betrayal was far worse than Harry's. Alla: I guess we are at agree to disagree point then - sort of. Because while I agree that Goblin had clear intent to betray Harry to much worse fate than Harry intended to not giving him sword right away, I still think that two wrongs do not make right. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 17:10:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:10:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's role In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176578 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Angel > > > Here is my view of Snape's role in the Potterworld. Without Snape > there > > would not have been a Harry Potter. In Snape's own words - > (apologies no book at hand) When Snape came to enlist > > Dumbledore's help in saving the original trio (James, Lily, Harry) > he spoke > > only about Lily and Dumbledore rebuffed that the prophecy spoke > not of a > > woman. Snape's reply was - "that's why he think's it's her", > because it was > > Snape who overheard the prophecy and Snape who delivered the > faulted > > prophecy and Snape who inadvertently casted a hero out of Harry > and brought > > about Voldemort's demise long before the initial rook was moved. > > > > Alla: > > Without Snape the story of Harry's life would have been much > different, very true and we would not have it as it was in the story > we read. > > But without Snape, if we look at the story from within the story, ( > in my mind meaning as if the characters as "real"), the "boy" named > Harry Potter would still been born in that world. > > Except that boy would have a chance to grow up with mother and > father and not to be a "Chosen one", would have a normal life, a > family, possibly a godfather, who would never went to jail. > > Granted his parents could still die in the war OR NOT. They would > not have to hide and use a Secret Keeper though. > > Somehow I think Harry would love his life to be without Snape > shaping it as it turned out. > > JMO, > > Alla > Carol responds: Without Snape, there would have been no eleven-year respite for the WW. Order members were being killed off one by one--the McKinnons, the Boneses, the Prewetts, Benjy Fenwick, etc. It was only a matter of time for Lupin, Black, and the Potters, and Pettigrew would have turned spy Prophecy or no Prophecy since he was afraid of LV and looking for protection from the biggest bully on the playground. The only thing keeping Voldemort from taking over the Ministry, and, from there, the WW, had Snape not revealed the partial Prophecy would have been Dumbledore. There would have been no Chosen One without LV's acting to thwart the Prophecy. (And, had Snape not asked LV to spare Lily, there would *still* have been no Chosen One because all three Potters would have died at Godric's Hollow.) I suppose DD could have gone after the Horcruxes himself, but if he'd put on the ring and there was no Snape at Hogwarts to slow the curse, or he'd gone after the (fake) locket with no Chosen One to accompany him, there would go the WW. And that's not counting the help that Snape gave Harry in the books, especially DH, including teaching him about Bezoars. Essentially, if Dumbledore could have stopped Voldemort by himself, he would have done so. He couldn't. He needed Harry--not the normal Harry as he might have been in the unlikely event that both his parents had survived the endless Voldie War that began ca. 1970 and would have continued unabated throughout Harry's lifetime, but the soulbit-inhabited Harry who became Voldie's "equal" and acquired "the power that {LV] knows not" through his mother's self-sacrifice. Snape's love for Lily is, of course, central to both his protection of Harry and to his redemption, but Snape is also a key figure for other reasons. He revealed the partial Prophecy, triggering the events at Godric's Hollow. He begged Voldemort to save Lily, making her survival possible and her death a self-sacrifice rather than a planned murder, which in turn gave Harry the blood protection (extended by DD to the Dursleys) and made Harry's survival possible. He informed DD that LV was targeting the Potters, indirectly resulting in the Fidelius Charm (broken by PP). He spied for DD at "great personal risk" before Godric's Hollow. He taught Harry about Bezoars, which would ultimately save Ron's life. He saved Harry from Quirrell. He taught Harry Expelliarmus, which saved Harry himself many times and became his signature spell. He discovered that Harry was a Parselmouth. He protected Harry throughout his school years, conjuring stretchers in PoA and helping to thwart both Crouch!Moody and Umbridge. He went back to LV, again at great personal risk, to find out what LV was telling his DEs. (He seems to have been DD's source of information for the Prophecy plna, for example.) He taught Harry what Occlumency and Legilimency are and why he needed to learn Occlumency. He reported to DD that Harry was seeing dreams and visions of LV and the DoM. He sent the Order to the MoM to save Harry and his friends (after rescuing Neville from Crabbe's chokehold). He prolonged DD's life, saved Katie Bell and Draco (and, by implication, others--"Lately, only those whom I could not save" is spoken before the Katie Bell and Draco incidents). He aids Harry by sending him the Sword of Gryffindor and giving him that last crucial message. He protects the students of Hogwarts as best he can from the Carrows. (Imagine Yaxley as headmaster of Hogwarts in his stead--or Lucius Malfoy, if he were in LV's good graces. Or Bellatrix as headmistress. . . .) Carol, who thinks that Harry's life without DDM!Snape would have been short and brutal From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 2 17:29:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:29:39 -0000 Subject: The Dark Arts (Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176579 lizzyben: > You can prove your goodness in how much you hate "the other", the > Darkness. Associating the bad guys w/"Dark Magic" just gives us > another good reason to hate them. And IMO that's the real function > of dark magic in the novels. Jen: I don't see this as a means to encourage hate. I mean, JKR could have actually portrayed what Snape's friends did at school or what Snape himself and Regulus did as DEs if she wanted to inspire hatred. She chose not to bring that into the books. I asked myself why, wouldn't that make a better story to show how far down a person went before attempting to redeem himself? More like Darth Vadar in other words, where we actually see his crimes and the path to his redemption in action. My answer is that in order to show them in a different light later, those actions were purposely kept off-page or only referred to by other characters. That tactic worked for me anwyay. I felt sympathy for Snape in the Worst memory scene, during the other Pensieve memories and at his death. Regulus was even more off-page but the way he handled the cave caused me to see him in a good light. Draco's characterization was a little different, we actually view him working for Voldemort, yet his terror at torturing people for LV was sympathetic and didn't encourgage me to feel hatred toward him but pity and sadness. Maybe she should have showed all the dark deeds claimed by the good guys in order to make the disctinction clear. She'd definitely have had to work harder to make me see goodness in those characters in the end though. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 2 17:29:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:29:19 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and the MOM (Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176580 > Magpie: > > The Dementors, iirc, left Azkaban to join Voldemort--again, he got > > rid of them, not Dumbledore or society. Dumbledore worked with them > > as guards of Azkaban. Do we know they're not guards at Azkaban > > anymore? They're working at the MoM in DH, maybe they still are > > afterwards, only not under DEs. I don't recall getting rid of them > > being any main objective of Dumbledore's. > > Jen: I was including the information from the Bloomsbury chat: > > Steph: Will azkaban still use dementors? > J.K. Rowling: No, definitely not. Kingsley would see to that. The use > of Dementors was always a mark of the underlying corruption of the > Ministry, as Dumbledore constantly maintained. Mgapie: Oh, I didn't read that chat. I have to say though, that it reminds me of why people were so puzzled by Harry's Crucio. Why are we supposed to know the Dementors are a sign of the underlying corruption of the Ministry, exactly? It seems like just another one of those random signs of ethical superiority of Dumbledore et al. that's not explained. Obviously they're awful things, and yet I could easily imagine a scene where, say, the twins locked somebody in a room with Dementors (maybe in a cage so they can't actually suck his soul or something) being played as satisfying revenge. Or Harry doing it to somebody (he does say he'll let the Dementors have Peter). Why is wrong for the Ministry to ally itself with "such creatures" exactly? I know why I would protest having them as guards, but then I don't like lots of things considered justice in the series. It seems like they're part of that "Dark Magic" idea again. The Ministry shows that it's bad because it's got this bad association with Dark Magic/Dark creatures. Dark=bad. But if you're wondering what Dark is okay (use of certain curses by certain people) and what Dark is bad (signs of underlying corruption) you have to look to your characters of authority to tell you. James and Lily tells us Snape's obsession with the Dark Arts showed an underlying corruption (as did his choice of Dark Arts-using friends), Harry tells us he despises Draco for his obsession with the Dark Arts, Dumbledore tells us we should not be allied with Dementors. That's why JKR has to tell somebody that the Dementors were supposed to be a sign of underlying corruption (a marked contrast to her response to the question of Harry's Crucio-- hey, he's never been a saint!). -m From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 2 17:34:38 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:34:38 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (ignoring Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176581 Alla: > But even if I were to go with hexes and jinxes, I still see a major differences between using them and what supposedly Snape's pals did to Mary for example. Lily sounded too horrified instead of amused for me. *(snip)* ...I definitely believe Lily. Ceridwen: I can't quite believe Lily in The Prince's Tale about the difference between the Prank and whatever it was Mulciber (not Snape) did to Mary, because Lily didn't have all the facts about the Prank. James saved Severus from "whatever's down there" - she didn't know it was a werewolf, that James, Sirius and Peter all knew that, and that the werewolf was Remus. She did know what Mulciber did to Mary. She can't compare the two incidents adequately without all the info. But Severus could. He knew what happened with Mary, since Mulciber was his friend, and Lily talks as if this is common knowledge. He also knows what happened to him in the tunnel, what he saw, and what James saved him from. He switches straight from Mary to the Prank, because the two are associated in his mind. He can't tell Lily about Remus, and James, Sirius, Peter and Remus probably wouldn't (until she married James, sort of like a witch or wizard keeping the magic out of a relationship until marriage to keep the secret). Severus probably had his theory beforehand, but he can't say that it's been confirmed. If Lily had known that a) Sirius sent Severus down the tunnel knowing there was a werewolf at the other end and b) there was a werewolf at the other end, would she have seen a difference between whatever Mulciber did to Mary and what Sirius tried to do to Severus? Ceridwen. From teddyb14 at swbell.net Sun Sep 2 17:11:11 2007 From: teddyb14 at swbell.net (teddyb142002) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 17:11:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's role In-Reply-To: <007601c7ece4$5b5ae290$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176582 > Angel > I agree with everything you've said Snape had done yet disagree with > your interpretation of the very same "acts". > > Snape's heroism is all the more poignant BECAUSE of his > prejudices. In spite of such terrible and deep scars he fought for > Harry, he saved Harry, risked life and limb for an ungrateful > hateful Harry, who wore the face of Snape's arch nemesis and the > saw Snape through the eyes of unrequited love/guilty conscience. > Whatever hate Snape bore towards Harry was fully reciprocated > despite having saved his life many times, Harry was not the least > grateful. > As for love, you can't possibly be arguing that sending the darkest > deadliest hateful yet stupidest wizard to off someone's husband and > child so you might have a chance with them could be construed as > love could you??? Ted: I never said that Snape's love was perfect, or healthy, or even desirable. You admitted that Snape had inadvertently sent Voldemort hunting the Potters, so it's not the act of telling him the prophecy that is an expression of his love, but his enlisting of Dumbledore for their protection that is the act of love. What makes it selfish is that he acts only to protect what he loves, thinking nothing of what Lily loves. Pretty imperfect love, but still powerful enough to allow Lily to make the sacrifice that gives Harry his protection. I have also stated that I think that Harry had a lot to do with the animosity between himself and Snape. He is also a child who has been treated badly for no reason apparent to him, so its hard to hold him too accountable. The true tragedy of Snape and Harry's relationship was that they couldn't find some common ground in their love of Lily to build some sort of a positive relationship. Ted From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 18:12:30 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 11:12:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Winks and nods from JKR in DH Message-ID: <38009.82668.qm@web30802.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176583 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dondee Gorski" wrote: > Has anyone else noticed things like this as you have re-read > the books? > > Cheers, Dondee Pam: I noticed one on second read--in the chapter "Shell Cottage," Harry is sitting alone on the cliff and Ron and Hermione approach. Harry catches the tail end of their argument. Ron is giving Hermione his theories on the possibility that Dumbledore isn't really dead and the various signs and symbols that support his theories. Hermione is repeatedly telling Ron, 'we saw him, we know he's really dead.." very much echoing the "Dumbledore is not dead" theories that abounded for 2 years, to the point of JKR having to comment on them. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 18:34:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:34:03 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176584 > Alla quotes Rowling: > " Q. Voldemort is Harry's real father/grandfather/close relative of > some description > A. No, no, no, no, no. You lot have been watching much too much > Star Wars. James is DEFINITELY Harry's father. Doesn't everybody > Harry meets say 'you look just like your father'? And hasn't > Dumbledore already told Harry that Voldemort is the last surviving > descendent of Salazar Slytherin? Just to clarify - this means that > Harry is NOT a descendent of Salazar Slytherin." > > Alla: > > I mean, if she would have stopped with defusing " Voldemort Harry's > father/grandfather", I would have seen nothing contradictory", BUT > we know that Voldemort and Harry are related now, no? zgirnius: A minor point, but Harry is NOT a descendant of Slytherin. Voldemort, through his relation to the Peverells, is a descendant of one of the three brothers. Harry, through James, is a descendant of another. The father of those three brothers, is a common ancestor of Voldemort and Harry. Salazar may or may not be related to any of the brothers; there is certainly no reason to suppose that he is an ancestor of all three (and therefore of Harry). > Mike: > > And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys > > is a denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is > > unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to > > terms with personally. zgirnius: It is neither the house from which all bad guys came, nor a house consisting entirely of bad guys. I'm afraid I don't even know what you are saying, here. What you say later, about it being the house of Riddle and most of his followers, seems too obvious to debate. Perhaps that is all you mean here? > Alla: > Right, that is if you limit Dark Magic to Horcruxes or Inferi. If > you expand Dark Magic to majorly hurting other people, then I say we > get a different picture. Like, sure for example I think Harry used > Sectusemptra as in using Dark magic, since Draco was hurt in a major > way. I think Harry was justified doing it, but IMO it was a Dark > magic. Only to twist Mike's words a little bit, I would call it Dark > magic with intent to defend himself if that makes sense. zgirnius: My qualification was intended to show that I meant only Harry's use of Sectumsempra against Snape. Snape was not attacking him, so its use was not defensive in that instance. And even if he had been using it defensively, he knows effective non-Dark spells to use instead (the ones Snape used in that scene until he lost him temper, for example). Harry used it in the bathroom not knowing it was either Dark or ptentially deadly. > Alla: > Or maybe Mike is right and JKR did not really mean to call hexes and > jinxes having a touch of Dark magic? zgirnius: With all due respect to Mike, counterjinxes and countercurses are both taught in DADA, and students practice defending against jinxes, hexes, and curses in that class. Since that is the class for learning to defend oneself from the Dark Arts, I conclude that the things they practise defending themselves from, *are* Dark Arts. The website merely confirms what is clearly shown in the books, in my view. > Alla: > Because I still do not > remember James and Sirius using a curse that hurt anybody in a > major way and I definitely believe Lily. I mean, was Snape hurt > badly after Pensieve scene? I don't know. I am dying to > read enciclopedia. I am guessing that she would finally put some > definition in, although as I said for the most part it does make > sense to me. zgirnius: I do not recall Severus using one either. Which makes perfect sense. A use of a Dark spell to permanently cripple or kill a student would, I hope, result in serious santions even in the Potterverse. Sirius walked away untouched in that scene, James had a cut which healed, and Severus had a number of bruises. > Alla: > Snape, um, most definitely IMO with his pal Mulciber. zgirnius: Lily never suggests Severus did any such thing. An odd oversight, if she believed he did. > Alla: > Either that OR what they used were not dark magic, but instead JKR > making things up on the fly. Or maybe what they used was less > serious dark magic. > > I mean, if JKR would meant to stress that hexes and jinxes are big, > nasty dark magic, do you think she would have called them amusing? zgirnius: There are degrees of everything, this is rather my point. Severus inventing a spell to grow someone's toenails, Sirius using the Impediment Jinx/Curse on an unarmed opponent, and Voldemort murdering Lily, are all instances of different degrees of Dark Magic use. The first two, I can see people finding funny. (Actually, I have a bit of trouble seeing the humor personally, but after two years in fandom, I am able to verify empirically that each of the first two instances is considered funny by someone ). As to your suggestion she did not think it through - it's all through the books in the form of the DADA curriculum as shown in classes and conversations about the classes. She did not, I presume, make the books up on the fly? As I see it, saying 'he/she is a Dark Wizard' in the Potterverse means not 'he/she uses magic of a sort I would *never* use', but 'he/she uses magic I would only use under special circumstances, such as in self-defense, to advance his/her political and personal agenda through terror'. And to the extent people saying such things use them on rivals in school because it is funny, they are being a tad self-righteous and hypocritical. Sirius and James tormenting Severus in that one scene did not contribute to making the world safer for Muggleborns, though Peter sure got a kick out of it and Sirius was no longer bored, poor boy. (Rather the opposite, if I had to guess). > lizzyben: > Yeah, it's hypocrisy - hypocrisy that runs right through the novel, > and right through the series. Without a good definition of the > distinction, it becomes hypocritical for our heroes to hate someone > solely for using dark magic. And sometimes I get the feeling that we > never got a definition because the actual function of dark magic isn't > important. zgirnius: I disagree. The definition is clear. All things called jinxes, hexes, and curses are to differing degrees Dark, so are certain creatures we see the students learnign abotu, as well as other things specifically identified as Dark (Horcruxes, Inferimaking, etc.). I suppose we can't really tell about the Marauders' Map, but since its makers were an eventual Death Eater and three at least occasional users of the Dark Arts, I don't see knowing this point as crucial to the underpinnings of either the moral or magical underpinnings of the Potetrverse. It *is* hypocritical for our heroes to hate people for this reason. Therefore, our heroes are hypocritical. They are also variously rash, thoughtless, cruel, arrogant, manipulative, vindictive, and probably otehr flaws that don't leap to mind at this moment. They are also variously courageous, compassionate, kind, loving, self-sacrificing, and probably possess other virtues as well. > lizzyben: > What's important is who is using it. Dark Arts becomes associated > w/Slytherin house, Durmstrang, Sirius' creepy family - people who are > different and foreign and odd. And the connotation of "Dark Magic" > makes us feel really good about hating it; almost self-righteous > about hating it. Dark Magic is evil, right? (When they do it, not > when we do it.) zgirnius: That is certainly the attitude of many characters in the series. I disagree that is its message. What it important is not who is using it, but *why* they are using it. The Death Eaters are using it to overthrow the government and install a reign of terror against the Muggleborns and Muggles, killing and torturing those they consider beneath them indiscriminately. The Order are using it to try to stop them and protect themselves and others. The kids in school, on both sides, are using them as kids will, to practise them and learn them and have fun doing it. To equate the petty cruelty of the Marauders with some atrocity of the Death Eaters is just silly, IMO. I think the author expected us to see there is a difference. Just as it is equally silly to equate Severus' use of Sectumsempra (or whatever it was) against one of two boys who had just attacked him to such an atrocity. The kids' stuff is kids' stuff, and the adult stuff is where the moral message was intended to lie, as I see it. The real 'Dark Wizards' of the series are those carrying out such atrocities. > lizzyben: > So when we hate these people, take revenge against > these people, use violence against these people, we don't have to feel > bad about it - we can actually feel very good & self-righteous about > it. Normally, you would feel bad about hurting someone, but when that > person is a "Dark Wizard", you can feel like it's actually justified > as part of a larger battle between good vs. evil... and you are now on > the side of good. zgirnius: Who was killed in revenge by the good guys? Someone died in the Seven Potters raid, as I recall, so did someone in the Order. Not revenge, but a battle, initiated by the 'bad guys'. Bella died, yes, in a duel to the death with Molly Weasley, who got into the duel to protect the life of her daughter. Voldemort died, when a Dark Curse he cast despite being warned not to, rebounded and killed him. Where are all these revenge killings I was supposed to vicariously enjoy? I feel cheated! I did derive a great deal of satisfaction from the victory of the 'good guys'. But this is because the book made quite clear that they were in a battle of good vs. evil, and good won. YAY! Not because the other side used wrong magic (A Muggle such as I could not care less, really), but because the other side did things even a Muggle such as myself could see clearly were evil, and intended to keep on doing more and more of them if not stopped. > lizzyben: > no, Sirius talks about what James hated. > James *hated* the Dark Arts, and this hatred proves that he was a > good person. zgirnius: I took this differently. I thought what needed to be justified in the first place was James' hateful behavior, and Sirius grasped that. By trying to tie it to the adult political/war picture, Sirius attempted to excuse it. He was wrong to try, it was not excusable. James may have been a good person, but that was despite what he did to Severus in that scene, not because of it. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 18:50:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 18:50:50 -0000 Subject: Though the Past Darkly Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176585 There really is a wealth of fun and knowledge in old discussion threads. Since we are talking about the Nature of Dark Magic again, I tried to search out my old posts about that subject. You know, 'There is dark magic and then there is Dark Magic, the two not necessarily being the same'. Haven't found it yet, but in the search I discovered two other fun posts. Now, I hate to toot my own horn but...NO WAIT... I love to toot my own horn; here are a couple of threads that I thought might provide some fun diversion, especially for the newer members. The first is on The Science of Magic. Is magic really science that muggles simply haven't discovered, or is it a unique form of genius, or perhaps it is a blend. Perhaps, magical people merely have the genius necessary to tap into the natural forces that have yet to be discovered by science. "Science of Magic (was Re: The Statute of Secrecy" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/159218?var=1 The other thread is just me rambling on as I try to guess the extent of Harry's fortune. Using my impression of 'mounds of gold' in Harry's vault and the movie coins, I estimate Harry's wealth. For the record, it is - US $705,024 UK ?440,640 or some multiple there of. "FWIW: Potter's Cash" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161926 "Re: FWIW: Potter's Cash - Revised" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/161932 When I find the 'Dark Magic/dark magic' thread, I'll post a link to that too. Just for fun. Steve/bboyminn From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 19:12:58 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:12:58 -0000 Subject: Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176586 > > bboyminn: > > >> My central point is, that I get tired of people saying > > that Harry betrayed or Double Crossed Griphook. HE DID > > NOT. He fully intended to give the Sword. Griphook > > just made assumptions that were not in fact stated about > > when and were the Sword would be given. Never good > > to make a transaction based on assumptions as both > > Harry and Griphook discover. > I beg to differ. Harry *did* double cross Griphook. I'm not denying for one minute that Goblins' views on property are dishonest and unfair, but Harry knew what the deal was and he should have taken that into consideration when they were making their agreement. I knew he intended to keep his word sometime in the future, but what consolation is that when you've been left down by someone you trusted? coriandra2002 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 19:24:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:24:57 -0000 Subject: On the Nature of Dark Magic - Revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176587 I've spoken at length on the Nature of Dark Magic in the past, and nothing has happened in the books since that time to have changed my mind. For those interested in a summary of my views, check out this link. "Re: legalities, dark magic, and dark wizards" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/151230 This thread contains a link to my short essay on the matter, which can also be found here. "Nature of Dark Magic" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141171 In short, there is a distinction between 'dark magic' which simply implies used for a bad purpose, and 'Dark Magic' which has an inherently evil aspect independent of its use. I speculate that true Dark Magic has something inherently destructive in its creation process, and by extension that intent, purpose, and result don't matter with regard to its classification as truly Dark Magic. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 19:25:33 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:25:33 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176588 lizzyben wrote: > Could be. Or maybe he was telling the truth, or maybe making an assumption. Is it possible Lupin was involved in dark magic? IMO, yes. It's his area of expertise as a DADA professor, after all. But w/o a real understanding of what dark magic actually is, it's no fun to debate it. It becomes a personal, individual interpretation. > Carol responds: It's hard to tell, given that we only see Lupin teaching third years, but his DADA specialty appears to be Dark creatures--not surprising, given that he's one himself. He tell Harry, rather oddly, "I don't pretend to be an expert on fighting Dementors, Harry. Quite the contrary" (PoA Am. ed. 189). It's not even clear that he can cast a Patronus himself since he only shoots "a silvery thing" out of his wand to make the Dementor on the train go away (85). The unconscious Harry doesn't witness it. Lupin also lies to himself and to Harry about Sirius Black using Dark magic learned from Voldemort to get past the Dementors when he knows perfectly well that Black is an Animagus. There's no indication that he wrote detailed answers like Severus's on his DADA OWL. In short, the extent of Lupin's DADA knowledge (aside from the potency of chocolate as a remedy, which even we Muggles know ) is unclear. He can effectively teach a kid to repel a Boggart or a Grindylow; as an adult, he has no qualms about sending a wad of chewing gum up Peeves the Poltergeist's nose--the sort of thing that quarreling wizard family members seem to do to each other at Christmas, judging from the woman with the walnut up her nostril in "Christmas on the Closed Ward," OoP--neither more no less "dark" than Teen! Severus's toenail hex but probably more painful. But is he a Dark Arts/DADA expert like Snape? Could he have identified and treated the curses on the opal necklace and the ring Horcrux had he been in Snape's position? I very much doubt it. At any rate, it's clear that Lupin doesn't know the countercurse to Sectumsempra or he wouldn't have viewed George's ear, cursed of with a specific form of Dark magic, as incurable. And he couldn't have saved Draco in HBP had he been the DADA teacher. Again, I think that Snape uses the map's ostensibly being "full of Dark magic" as an excuse to call in Lupin ("This is *supposed* to be your area of expertise," PoA 288) without revealing to Harry that he knows full well that Lupin is one of the makers of the enchanted parchment, which he rightly suspects of showing Harry how to get into Hogsmeade undetected. Since he knows more than Lupin about Dark magic, I suspect that he's being no more straightforward than Lupin and that both of them are talking over Harry's head in this scene. lizzyben: > > No doubt, the diary is more *evil* than the map. But I'm talking about "Dark Arts" as a supposedly separate branch of magic - w/special spells, items, & techniques that can be taught in a class. And here the map seems to have definite similarities w/the "Dark Magic" diary. The items seem to work in a similar way, and were perhaps created w/similar techniques & spells. It's certainly different than anything Harry & co. learn at Hogwarts. The Map isn't made using transfiguration, potions, DADA... so what branch of magic was it created with? Dark Arts, maybe? :) Carol responds: I think that if the diary had merely been an interactive object which allowed a person writing in the diary to converse with the memory of Tom Riddle and enter his memories, it would have been little worse than the Marauder's Map, which was intended as an aid to magical mischief (such as sneaking into the restricted section of the library under the Invisibility cloak to read up on Animagi or, later, sneaking out to run around at full moon with a werewolf). Granted, Memory!Tom was already a murderer who had framed Rubeus Hagrid for the death of his victim, but what made the diary far Darker than the map was the soul bit, which could possess a person who became emotionally attached it and cause that person to release the Basilisk (or, ultimately, to provide Memory!Tom with a host soul). IOW, the diary as interactive magical object is pretty much on the same level as the Marauder's Map and perhaps the Sorting Hat; the diary as Horcrux is another matter altogether, and a genuine example of Dark magic. Malice; vengeance; possession; cold, calculated murder of "unworthy" students; soul-stealing--however mischievous the Marauders were, and I'm no fan of any of them, they had no such purpose(s) in creating the Marauders' Map or becoming Animagi. They just wanted to have their reckless, unthinking, highly dangerous idea of "fun." (And, no. I do *not* approve of endangering the citizens of Hogsmeade or tricking/daring a classmate into encountering a monster who could kill him or destroy his life; it's just not on the same level as murdering people, making possible still more murders, and preserving a bit of your own soul in a Horcrux created by murder.) lizzyben: > > I believe Lily meant what she said, but I'm still confused. JKR has stated that hexes, jinxes & curses are "minor Dark Magic," and we see the Marauders using hexes, jinxes & curses. So how can Lily say that they don't use dark magic? Snape is confused too, & here I don't blame him. Probably the young Death Eaters were more sinister, since they became Death Eaters and all - but what would that mean? We don't even know what the "Dark Arts" *are*. I see a lot of conflation here, where James & co. are against dark magic & transfer that to Slytherins. They hate Slytherins & transfer that to "dark magic". It all gets bunched together as the "other" is associated w/everything evil. Carol: I agree here (or I think I do). JKR's onsite definitions are no help at all and don't fit with the text. James and co. seem from the very first to be projecting Dark magic onto Slytherin and, by extension, onto Severus (who, in contrast, sees Slytherin as a House for "brains"). Only one of Severus's invented spells, Sectumsempra, qualifies as anything worse than a hex (Muffliato is nothing but a charm) and MWPP think nothing of using his own spells against him. Would they do so if they thought they were Dark magic? If so, they're consummate hypocrites as well as bullies. The Potions hints aren't remotely Dark. It seems to me that the "darkness" of Severus Snape is mostly in the minds of the Marauders--until he chooses to join the Death Eaters and genuinely, if temporarily, accepts their philosophy. But is what Mulciber tried to do to Lily's friend Mary really any worse than choking a fellow student with soapsuds? We don't know because we're not told what he tried to do, any more than we're told what Grindelwald did to get expelled from Durmstrang(!). Nor do we know how Albus or Aberforth could have accidentally killed Arizna. (Surely, neither of them cast an AK.) The message I get is that *all* magic is dangerous, and wizards in general tend to "hex people because they can," like James Potter in the corridors, or wipe people's memories to get themselves out of trouble. Altogether, very confusing. Situational morality with a high degree of hypocrisy and perhaps some mislabeling and no clear definition of what is Dark and what isn't. Even Patronuses can be put to evil use, as we see in DH with Umbridge's cat Patronus protecting her and Yaxley from the Dementors. Maybe there *is* no good magic, only neutral magic and purely evil magic. But then we're back to Snape's absolutely necessary AK and Harry's use of a spell designed to torture. I see no clear moral boundaries. I don't think we're meant to approve of James's and Sirius's unprovoked attack on Severus (though Harry allows himself to forget about it after Lupin and Black make their excuses, just as he allows himself to forget the horror of nearly causing Draco to bleed to death in HBP) and I do think we're meant to approve of self-defense (the DA, etc.) but beyond that, the distinctions between good and evil, Dark and Light, are blurred. > lizzyben: > > So what is it then? If mean-spirited, violent, aggressive spells aren't dark, if even unforgiveable curses aren't dark - what is dark then? Why are we supposed to hate the Slytherins for using "dark magic" when we don't even know what that is, or how it's any different from what our guys are doing? > Carol: At a guess, what Avery and Mulciber are doing in "The Prince's Tale" is "dark" because Lily knows that they intend to be Death Eaters. Severus, in contrast, sees it as amusing, the same attitude that James takes toward using an illegal hex to blow up a fellow student's head to twice its normal size. Who's right? I have no clue. I'm not going to talk about the Unforgiveables, which somehow seem okay once they are legalized, or no longer penalized, by the lawless WW under the DEs. But clearly Horcruxes are the Darkest of Dark magic. I would characterize the combined potion/incantation that resurrected Voldemort as Dark as well, in part because of the cruelty involved (forcing a servant to slice off his own hand) and in part because of the unnaturalness of the spell. The potion that created Fetal!mort (composed in part of venom from a Dark creature, Nagini, and in part of unicorn blood) is probably Dark as well. Sectumsempra is characterized by Snape himself as Dark, perhaps because it can result in a painful death or perhaps because it's "incurable" (unless you're Snape). Creating Inferi is also characterized as Dark by our resident Dark Arts expert, Professor Snape, as is the curse on the Ring Horcrux. The potion in the cave, which tortures mentally and physically, forcing the victim to drink lake water and be murdered by Inferi is surely Dark as well. Fiendfyre, seemingly unstoppable fire taking the shape of monsters, also appears to be Dark. Personally, I can't see anything that Mulciber intended to do to Mary Whatshername on the school grounds as roughly comparable in Darkness to any of this magic. Even Sectumsempra (in contrast to the little cut that James received, which did not remain unhealed or we'd have heard about it) would have led to his expulsion. Darkness, with the exception of Dementor, Inferi, Horcruxes, the resurrection of evil Dark Lords in the graveyard, and possibly Fiendfyre, seems to be in the eye of the beholder. Those kids on the school ground (MWPP, Lily, Severus, and even the wannabe DEs, Avery and Mulciber) had no idea how evil Voldemort really was, any more than Draco and Regulus did when they so eagerly joined up. I don't think even Crabbe would have cast the Fiendfyre spell in DH if he truly knew what Dark magic really was. I think that some of them (maybe all except Severus, who was in denial about his friends' ambitions) associated Dark magic with Death Eaters and Death Eaters with Slytherin. The difference is that the Slytherins, like Draco twenty years later, thought that the DEs and Dark magic were "cool" and the Gryffindors saw them as "evil." All of those assumptions seem to have been projected by both sides onto Severus Snape, who chose to see as Avery and Mulciber did after Lily refused to forgive him. None of which provides any enlightenment at all regarding what really constitutes Dark magic, only what I think may be the underlying assumptions by the Gryffindors and Slytherins (with the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs for the most part remaining neutral). Carol, wishing that Tom Riddle had never come near the school to contaminate Slytherin House and ruin the lives of so many people From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 19:33:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:33:03 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176589 > Ceridwen: > I can't quite believe Lily in The Prince's Tale about the difference > between the Prank and whatever it was Mulciber (not Snape) did to > Mary, because Lily didn't have all the facts about the Prank. James > saved Severus from "whatever's down there" - she didn't know it was a > werewolf, that James, Sirius and Peter all knew that, and that the > werewolf was Remus. She did know what Mulciber did to Mary. She > can't compare the two incidents adequately without all the info. Alla: Sorry, I completely disagree, I think she knew all the facts and **still** placed more importance on what Mulciber et all did to Mary. I was absolutely convinced that Snape told her his theory. "He's ill," said Lily. "They say he's ill__" " Every month at the full moon?" said Snape. "I know your theory," said Lily, and she sounded cold. "Why are you so obsessed with them anyway? Why do you care what they're doing at night?" - p.674. Eh, do we know any other illnesses at night during full moon at the potterverse? Personally I have no doubt that Snape sneaked it as his "theory" and told it to Lily. I mean, she **says** I know your theory. IMO of course. Maybe because if she knew, she thought that if Snape went to face werewolf **knowing** that it was werewolf there, he has partially himself to blame and Mary did not do anything like that? > Mgapie: > Oh, I didn't read that chat. I have to say though, that it reminds me > of why people were so puzzled by Harry's Crucio. Why are we supposed > to know the Dementors are a sign of the underlying corruption of the > Ministry, exactly? It seems like just another one of those random > signs of ethical superiority of Dumbledore et al. that's not > explained. Obviously they're awful things, and yet I could easily > imagine a scene where, say, the twins locked somebody in a room with > Dementors (maybe in a cage so they can't actually suck his soul or > something) being played as satisfying revenge. Or Harry doing it to > somebody (he does say he'll let the Dementors have Peter). > Alla: I cannot help but ask ( not sarcastically at all). Are you seriously wondering why is it bad for Ministry to associate themself with Dementors? Are you saying that it was not explained enough why creatures who suck the happiness out of you are bad? And I have to say, I cannot for the life of me imagine Twins locking up somebody with Dementors, their pranks and all that. I believe, obviosly JMO that they will totally drew the line there. I mean, I shudder when I think about them, as I do not do about Voldemort. It is a great example of knowing Dark magic when I see it. I find them horrifying, absolutely horrifying personally. > Carol responds: > Without Snape, there would have been no eleven-year respite for the > WW. Order members were being killed off one by one--the McKinnons, the > Boneses, the Prewetts, Benjy Fenwick, etc. It was only a matter of > time for Lupin, Black, and the Potters, and Pettigrew would have > turned spy Prophecy or no Prophecy since he was afraid of LV and > looking for protection from the biggest bully on the playground. > Alla: We do not know whether eleven year old respite would have been possible or not. Yes, Pettigrew would have been turned spy I agree, but he may not have a prophecy couple to betray too. Carol: > The only thing keeping Voldemort from taking over the Ministry, and, > from there, the WW, had Snape not revealed the partial Prophecy would > have been Dumbledore. There would have been no Chosen One without LV's > acting to thwart the Prophecy. Alla: Yes, there would have been **just Harry** - exactly my point. Carol: (And, had Snape not asked LV to spare > Lily, there would *still* have been no Chosen One because all three > Potters would have died at Godric's Hollow.) Alla: Yes, and......? I was saying that this is something Harry would not be grateful for? How is his mum's dead something that Harry should appreciate? How is it refutes my point? Carol: > Essentially, if Dumbledore could have stopped Voldemort by himself, he > would have done so. He couldn't. Alla: We do not know that. He may have destroyed all Horcruxes himself for all I know. Carol: He needed Harry--not the normal Harry > as he might have been in the unlikely event that both his parents had > survived the endless Voldie War that began ca. 1970 and would have > continued unabated throughout Harry's lifetime, but the > soulbit-inhabited Harry who became Voldie's "equal" and acquired "the > power that {LV] knows not" through his mother's self-sacrifice. Alla: That to me makes Dumbledore look worse, NOT Snape look better. Not that I am sure that he need Harry in advance, I think he just used the situation, not that I applaud him much for it. He wanted little boy turned into chosen one, because of Snape and Voldemort to be a killing machine, to be a saviour? Um, Booo Dumbledore. IMO of course. Carol: >> He revealed the partial Prophecy, triggering the events at Godric's > Hollow. He begged Voldemort to save Lily, making her survival possible > and her death a self-sacrifice rather than a planned murder, which in > turn gave Harry the blood protection (extended by DD to the Dursleys) > and made Harry's survival possible. Alla: Um, yes. Just looks horrifying instead of heroic to me. Carol: He informed DD that LV was > targeting the Potters, indirectly resulting in the Fidelius Charm > (broken by PP). Alla: Sure, Snape got remorseful that Lily will be killed. Ooops. Carol: He spied for DD at "great personal risk" before > Godric's Hollow. Alla: Sure he did, so? Carol: Alla: I think I will definitely nominate this Snape for Order of Merlin, LOL. But how can even I deny some of the things you named here after DH. I just do not buy some of them, mostly Harry related. AND do not find any of this to be relevant to my point. I of course do not see Snape **conjuring stretchers** as heroic deed and do not buy that Snape **taught** Harry expeliarmus. I think Harry learned it by himself - after seeing Snape cast it. It is not like I see that Snape had in mind teaching Harry that. IMO of course. Occlumency helped Harry exactly how? Snape discovered that Harry was a Parselmouth? You make it sound as if Snape has to get a medal for that or as if this helped Harry too. And he of course was saving Harry's life, to me saving son of Lily, but he was saving his life of course and did those other heroic things unrelated to Harry, of course he did. My point was that **without Snape** Harry had a chance to have a normal life without Snape needing to save his life even, I do not see how anything that you wrote refutes it. Was it a guarantee? Surely not. But I stand by my opinion that without Snape James and Lily would not have been a prophecy couple and had a chance to survive first war, just as Moody, Lupin and other members of the order did. And Harry would have had a loving mum and dad, maybe. > Carol, who thinks that Harry's life without DDM!Snape would have been > short and brutal > Alla: Or long and happy. zgirnius: > A minor point, but Harry is NOT a descendant of Slytherin. Voldemort, > through his relation to the Peverells, is a descendant of one of the > three brothers. Harry, through James, is a descendant of another. The > father of those three brothers, is a common ancestor of Voldemort and > Harry. Salazar may or may not be related to any of the brothers; > there is certainly no reason to suppose that he is an ancestor of all > three (and therefore of Harry). Alla: Well, yeah, I know. I was trying to say that her quote IMO can be read that Voldemort and Harry are not relatives at all, you know? I was not trying to say that Harry is a descendant of Slytherin, I was trying to say though that they are definitely related in the books and quote can be IMO read as contradictory to that. > > Alla: > > Or maybe Mike is right and JKR did not really mean to call hexes > and > > jinxes having a touch of Dark magic? > > zgirnius: > With all due respect to Mike, counterjinxes and countercurses are > both taught in DADA, and students practice defending against jinxes, > hexes, and curses in that class. Since that is the class for learning > to defend oneself from the Dark Arts, I conclude that the things they > practise defending themselves from, *are* Dark Arts. The website > merely confirms what is clearly shown in the books, in my view. Alla: Good point that, but do they practice defending themselves against all hexes and jinxes or only certain ones? Do you see what I am saying? I am not positive myself as to whether disregard what she wrote about it, believe me I used to be one of the most fierce defenders aso to whether she says in interviews should be taken as canon, regardless of whether interviews support my POV or not. I mean, I used to support my POV with them, but you get what I am saying. I am honestly not sure anymore. > > Alla: > > Snape, um, most definitely IMO with his pal Mulciber. > > zgirnius: > Lily never suggests Severus did any such thing. An odd oversight, if > she believed he did. Alla: Sorry about that, I was not talking about Snape using Dark magic in that scene, meaning against Mary. I agree that Lily would have mentioned it. I was saying that Snape with Mulciber use dark magic in the series - sorry that it came up so awkward. I am not also saying that we know that Snape used dark magic in the same time or place with Mulciber, ever. Does it make sense? zgirnius: There are degrees of everything, this is rather my point. Severus inventing a spell to grow someone's toenails, Sirius using the Impediment Jinx/Curse on an unarmed opponent, and Voldemort murdering Lily, are all instances of different degrees of Dark Magic use. The first two, I can see people finding funny. (Actually, I have a bit of trouble seeing the humor personally, but after two years in fandom, I am able to verify empirically that each of the first two instances is considered funny by someone ). Alla: My point was that JKR seemes to find jinxes amusing in that quote, not the characters, even though they obviosly do so too. You know? If she indeed considers jinxes to be dark magic, I personally find it odd that she would call it amusing. Zara: As to your suggestion she did not think it through - it's all through the books in the form of the DADA curriculum as shown in classes and conversations about the classes. She did not, I presume, make the books up on the fly? Alla: What is all through the books? Dark hexes and jinxes? It is mentioned now that you said it, I of course agree, that they practice counterjinxes and hexes and curses in DADA, but again ALL of them or just some of them? And is it mentioned that often that they do that? Not sure I remember that many, but again cannot be sure. I mean, we see one lesson with Snape when they do that. Moody taught them to fight Imperius, which is dark of course. We see dueling club, which I am not sure proves that they use dark curses, hexes or whatever, if they are dark. What else? Harry teaches them in DA, but again, does it prove that what he teaches against is dark? not sure. Any other examples? Just asking. Zara: As I see it, saying 'he/she is a Dark Wizard' in the Potterverse means not 'he/she uses magic of a sort I would *never* use', but 'he/she uses magic I would only use under special circumstances, such as in self-defense, to advance his/her political and personal agenda through terror'. Alla: Makes sense to me, actually. But I am not sure I want to write I agree with it, since I am sure somebody will throw it back at me later on, LOL. So I will just say that I have to think about your definition. JMO, Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 2 19:52:21 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 19:52:21 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176590 > > Mgapie: > > Oh, I didn't read that chat. I have to say though, that it reminds > me > > of why people were so puzzled by Harry's Crucio. Why are we > supposed > > to know the Dementors are a sign of the underlying corruption of > the > > Ministry, exactly? It seems like just another one of those random > > signs of ethical superiority of Dumbledore et al. that's not > > explained. Obviously they're awful things, and yet I could easily > > imagine a scene where, say, the twins locked somebody in a room > with > > Dementors (maybe in a cage so they can't actually suck his soul or > > something) being played as satisfying revenge. Or Harry doing it > to > > somebody (he does say he'll let the Dementors have Peter). > > > > Alla: > > I cannot help but ask ( not sarcastically at all). Are you seriously > wondering why is it bad for Ministry to associate themself with > Dementors? Are you saying that it was not explained enough why > creatures who suck the happiness out of you are bad? > > And I have to say, I cannot for the life of me imagine Twins locking > up somebody with Dementors, their pranks and all that. > > I believe, obviosly JMO that they will totally drew the line there. Magpie: As I said in my post, no *I* don't have trouble coming up with reasons it's bad to have Dementors guarding Azkaban, but what I find cruel is not always in line with what the books find cruel. I draw the line before the books in general. Since I've been surprised in the past at how cruel and callous (imo) characters can be when they're putting people in their place, it's only arbitrary to me that Dementors are the place the line is supposed to be drawn. The Dementors could just as easily have been something that was just supposed to be harsh but hey, that's the way it is and people like Bellatrix deserve it. I could see the Twins scaring somebody with a Dementor the same way Sirius might scare somebody with a werewolf. I mean, why should it be so clear to me that sucking the happiness out of Death Eaters is such a bad thing given everything else I'm told in the books? The question isn't just whether I see that Dementors are scary or awful to be around--obviously they're that. Jen originally listed getting rid of the Dementors (or at least getting them out of Azkaban--I don't know where they are now-- wandering around looking for victims?) as one of the victories of the book, which it isn't if the only reason we know Dementors aren't guarding Azkaban is from a chat where JKR was specifically asked that question (because it's not in the book). You might shudder when you think about Dementors--other people shudder when they think about Marietta's scarred face only that's just what she deserved because she's a traitor. Alla: > > I mean, I shudder when I think about them, as I do not do about > Voldemort. It is a great example of knowing Dark magic when I see it. > > I find them horrifying, absolutely horrifying personally. Magpie: But knowing it's Dark Magic doesn't make me immediately assume they couldn't just be something JKR liked having for just that reason so that the prison would be properly scary. Is the main reason this punishment is off-limits that JKR's experienced depression and based them on that? -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 2 20:27:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 20:27:39 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176591 Magpie: > I mean, why should it be so clear to me that sucking the happiness > out of Death Eaters is such a bad thing given everything else I'm > told in the books? The question isn't just whether I see that > Dementors are scary or awful to be around--obviously they're that. > Jen originally listed getting rid of the Dementors (or at least > getting them out of Azkaban--I don't know where they are now-- > wandering around looking for victims?) as one of the victories of the > book, which it isn't if the only reason we know Dementors aren't > guarding Azkaban is from a chat where JKR was specifically asked that > question (because it's not in the book). You might shudder when you > think about Dementors--other people shudder when they think about > Marietta's scarred face only that's just what she deserved because > she's a traitor. Jen: That isn't what I said, about victory; I said this was one of DD's ideals that came to fruition in the books. There's a pretty straight line with the Dementors from the quote I provided upthread, to Dumbledore not wanting the Dementors guarding the school, to Lupin saying, "if it can, the dementor will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself...soul-less and evil." (POA, chap. 10, p. 187) Finally in GOF, Dumbledore advocates outright for the removal of them from Azkaban because they're guarding LV's followers and are his natural allies. The MOM persists in allying itself with creatures who are 'soul-less and evil.' I read that the MOM is allying itself indirectly with Voldemort and therefore risked the consequences that become part of the story in DH - LV takes over the MOM once he gets enough followers and infiltrates; the Dementors become not only part of Azkaban but the entire MOM. The Dementors are last seen in the in the camp with Voldemort. They aren't at the MOM or Azkaban because the 'innocent are being released from there.' When Voldemort is defeated, his natural allies no longer have a place at the Ministry since they proved they would do exactly as DD said. From conquistas2000 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 21:10:21 2007 From: conquistas2000 at yahoo.com (conquistas2000) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:10:21 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176593 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > Lynda: > > "I don't think Harry's going to name his kids Vernon, Marge, Dudley > or Petunia" > > > salo.krano: > > Will the names not have been chosen by Hermione? > Why not? I mean Harry named one of his kid Albus Severus Potter. And I believe that Dumb-Bumbling-Dork is a lot more despicable than Vermin Durlsey. I believe placing a child in a "known" abusive enviroment is an unforgivable crime. And Dumbledore got off WAY TOO EASY in the books. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 21:22:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:22:09 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176594 lizzyben wrote: > > So when we hate these people, take revenge against these people, use violence against these people, we don't have to feel bad about it - we can actually feel very good & self-righteous about it. Normally, you would feel bad about hurting someone, but when that person is a "Dark Wizard", you can feel like it's actually justified as part of a larger battle between good vs. evil... and you are now on the side of good. Carol responds: Forgive me, but I think you're missing a major point that I've made several times. From the time he hears the Prophecy until the time he receives Snape's message indicating that he has to sacrifice himself, Harry believes that he will have to kill Voldemort or be killed by him. In OoP, he goes so far as to say that he will have to murder or be murdered. The only reason for committing such a murder would, of course, be vengeance against Voldemort for killing his parents and all the other atrocities he's committed or caused to be committed since that time. (I'm surprised, BTW, that so few posts are actually examining conditions in the WW during DH, the result of the Voldie regime even though he's off on a quest of his own.) What actually happens, thanks to Snape's message, is very different. Harry sacrifices himself as an act of love, expecting to die, not raising a wand to defend himself. Vengeance has nothing to do with it. And even after he returns from King's Cross, he still casts only Expelliarmus, the spell Snape taught him that has come to symbolize both a symbolic shift in a wand's allegiance without an act of violence and an act of mercy in itself (see Harry's reasons for not casting it against Stan Shunpike). Even though Voldemort killed Harry's parents, the final confrontation (Acts I and II) has nothing to do with vengeance and everything to do with enlightening Voldie with regard to everything from wands to Snape's allegiance to his one chance to escape a dark and terrible fate. Similarly, Harry has hated Snape for seven books. At the end of OoP and beginning of HBP, he unfairly blames him for Sirius Black's death. ("He would never forgive Snape. Never!") By the end of HBP, he has new and seemingly more valid reasons for hating him--the eavesdropping incident and the "murder" of Dumbledore. Twice (once in HBP and once in DH) he expresses the desire to meet Snape again, apparently under the delusion that he could win a duel against a Legilimens/Occlumens who's also an expert in nonverbal spells and parrying curses. Forgiveness has no more place than common sense in his thinking; all he wants is revenge against Severus Snape. He watches Snape's death with shock and horror despite still hating the man he sees as DD's murderer and betrayer, and the Pensieve memories enable him to understand and forgive the man who killed DD on DD's orders, who protected him all these years without understanding or gratitude, who loved Harry's mother and redeemed himself at terrible personal cost for his role in her death. Thanks primarily to Snape, Harry's desire for vengeance is gone, replaced by understanding of and empathy with Snape and the painful realization that he can't go into battle with Voldemort armed with a desire for revenge or even with righteous indignation. He must, like a martyr in early Christian times, walk into the (figurative) arena unarmed and give himself up as a sacrifice. Rather than an act of vengeance, he must perform the supreme act of love, not, as his mother had done, for a single loved one, but for the whole WW, from his friends Ron and Hermione to the now pathetic Draco Malfoy, from powerful wizards like Kingsley Shacklebolt and the now-dead Snape to the lowliest house-elf. In DH, Harry goes from the desire for vengeance against two enemies, one real and one perceived, to pity and compassion for almost everyone, even concern for the future state of Voldemort's soul (which he tries to prevent by offering him a chance at remorse). Except with regard to Snape and LV, we see signs of changes in him early on. He has already learned to accept and value the oddballs Neville and Luna; he appreciates Mrs. Weasley's sacrifices and fears (the incident with Fabian Prewett's watch); he develops an appreciation for Regulus Black's sacrifice and understanding and respect for Kreacher; he mourns Dobby's death and tries to deal honorably with a goblin, whom he saves from the wrath of Bellatrix. I'm sure there are other examples that I'm forgetting, but except for his brief temptation to seek the Hallows rather than the Horcruxes and that accursed Crucio, Harry in DH is for the most part a more mature, more understanding, less self-absorbed and self-righteous protagonist than we've seen in any of the other HP books. When he forgives Snape, the last remaining temptation toward vengeance disappears. Granted, there's still a battle, and in any battle, personal grudges will motivate the participants. Mrs. Weasley's wrath is fueled by mother love and righteous anger, Percy's and Ron's by grief and anger over Fred's death. But Harry himself has no such motivation. All he wants, in the end, is for fewer families to suffer and the WW to be healed. Carol, who sees Harry's character arc not as the triumph *of* vengeance but as the triumph *over* vengeance From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 2 21:27:08 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:27:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: References: <80f25c3a0708231906u1378563blcdd3fb473e4cbef5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709021427y186fe7f8id6f22fca3724ffc3@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176595 I've packaged my responses to all the replies (by Jen, Magpie, Mike and Julie) to my alchemy post here, including responses to the follow-on Slytherin House thread. I've dealt with the alchemy points first, then move on to Slytherin; most of the Slytherin points have little to do with alchemy, but I've kept them together for simplicity's sake. Jen: I'm curious, do you think there's any alchemical meaning to Voldemort talking about the cutting away of the diseased parts of the family trees so that only 'true blood' remains? It reminds me now of the reverse process of purification happening in certain families, because the refusal to allow new blood into the families is why the Gaunts ended up as they did. So he's contributing to his own demise in a way. Debbie: My alchemical reading is that all of the parts are valuable and that integration is necessary for purification. Thus, the pureblood families are in an alchemical sense less pure (purity here meaning value, in a lead-into-gold sense) than families that have absorbed and integrated the Other). So, yes, the Gaunts debased themselves through inbreeding, contributing to their own demise by clinging to the belief that pure blood was the only important thing, and Voldemort advocates the same thing. Jen: Wouldn't the addition of Harry's blood change his composition somewhat? He's given the mother love from another union that created a philosophical orphan. It was important to the story but perhaps not in alchemical terms. Debbie: The odd thing about the blood (and about the soul bit in Harry) is that neither seems to have had any effect whatsoever on the host's character. Harry's quite aware of the locket, but not the soul piece he's always had. And the same is true of the blood. Perhaps the resurrection spell, which specifically required blood of the enemy, counteracted any beneficial effect, but this is never explained. So, from an alchemical perspective, the blood seems not to exist. However, it's hard for me to see it having beneficial effect under the principles of alchemy because the blood was forcibly taken and therefore is not a blending of differences to create a new whole. If it had any effect, it should have been pain; any beneficial effect would have had to have been preceded by remorse -- because the merger of opposites would have to be voluntary -- and we don't see that. Magpie wrote: > I am the first to admit I really don't get alchemy, but I just have > to admit here that it seems like many explanations I read about how > the Gryffindor/Slytherin rift is healing reminds me of Harmonian > arguments for how Harry/Hermione is canon, because even though Harry > is going out with Ginny, Harry and Hermione's ride on Buckbeak > symbolically indicates that they are the real couple regardless. > Debbie: I'm not a shipper and if I was it would not be H/H, but I do have sympathy for those who read the books as foreshadowing H/H, and understand the basis for their POV. I think the same is true of most of the other issues we've been discussing, including the good Gryffs vs. bad Slyths dynamic. The books are full of ambiguities that JKR seems not to be willing to acknowledge, and some of her comments post-DH (which I've only read when they're quoted here, so I only have secondhand reports) harken back to her anti-H/H comments after HBP. However, the essence of alchemy is to merge disparate elements to create something new and improved. Thus, alchemy is all about unification, and it even uses the fire/water opposites that we know JKR has assigned to Gryffindor and Slytherin, respectively. So if you apply the principles of alchemy to the books, it's hard to reach any conclusion other than eventual unity between the two houses. I readily agree that the message is ridiculously obscure, if it's necessary to go study alchemy to find it. Magpie: > Didn't John Granger continue to push for H/Hr and Snape as a vampire > even after HBP based on alchemy? I seem to remember many of his > theories not holding up at all, but maybe I'm remembering wrong. > Debbie: What I've read of Granger's does not support H/H (I did see a posting to some forum with an H/H interpretation), and I haven't seen any vampire references at all. Magpie: > We do know her [Tonks'] house from interviews. She was Hufflepuff, not > Slytherin. So JKR does not have her symbolizing a marriage of > Gryffindor and Slytherin. (If she was supposed to do that, shouldn't > she just be a Slytherin?) An aside, but I don't think of them as a > quarrelling couple as I understand the term. We don't see them > quarrel much. Lupin is reticent and Tonks chases him. Lupin quarrels > with Harry. > Debbie: I don't read interviews, nor have I ever believed anything in an interview to be canon, but the primary point was that Tonks and Fleur have Slytherin connections. Whatever her house, Tonks was a member of the Black family. I suppose JKR thinks Slytherin is too tainted with the cancer to use actual Slytherins for this symbolic role. > Magpie: > Honestly, I think when you get this creative, you could prove Hugo > represents just about anything. > Debbie: The vast majority of names (mine for example) have absolutely no alchemical connections; JKR has selected names that do. Victor Hugo clearly had an interest in alchemy, and the Viktor Krum joke (which is the kind of joke JKR likes to play) seals the deal for me. JKR's names are not randomly chosen, and I don't buy the notion that JKR picked Rose and Hugo because they're currently popular in the UK. Magpie: > Nope no comfort at all--makes me more wonder why she put the stupid > song in there at all. The unity wasn't necessary, it didn't happen, > and if JKR didn't write it I'm not writing it in myself (at least, > not as an add-on to canon--I can imagine whatever I want in my head.) > Debbie: I never expected to see real house unity within the pages of these books, because I thought Voldemort had tainted Slytherin House to the point where it couldn't happen. I reread the OOP Sorting Hat song recently and concluded that it can be read much more ambiguously -- like a prophecy. I do see eventual house unity as a reasonable interpretation of the implications of the epilogue. No, it never happens on-page, but it would be a very boring story. It doesn't need to be written. The story of integration in my community, which defied the massive resistance policy to integrate, was not a big story because nothing happened. The students enrolled, and that was the end of it. Compare the integration of Central High in Little Rock, Arkansas, which was a major story because there was so much resistance from the powers in control. Likewise, "Potter Heir Sorted Into Slytherin" or "Gryffindors and Slytherins Field Joint Team in Inter-School Quidditch Competition" is a non-story. If anything, the story is "The Boy Who Lived Names Son For Dumbledore's Murderer." Magpie: > I can't imagine getting much out of any story that was based on this > kind of symbolism if it wasn't actually played out with the > characters. It seems to me more like the school was just purified > enough by getting rid of Slytherin in the crunch, leaving them only > with the Slytherins who had purified themselves in Gryffindor fire. > Debbie: I'm not getting your point. This cycle concluded with getting rid of Voldemort. Some Slytherins helped with this, but they did it their own way, not by undergoing some sort of Gryffindor purification. The school was left with all the Slytherins, whether they had purified themselves or not. Salazar may have poisoned Slytherin, but if the taint was irreparable they should have gotten rid of Slytherin House. The fact that they have not says something. The fact that Famous Harry Potter, with a long Gryffindor legacy, tells his son (with an equally long Gryffindor legacy through his Weasley side) that it's fine to be a Slytherin says something, too. Magpie: So they're no longer trying to kill each other. That's the happy ending, and that's fine. I don't think it makes Slytherin not the worst house. Thousands of pages tell me this and there's nothing that overhauls the house that I can see. You feel that kiilling Voldemort will magically change the personality of Slytherin, one that was bad beyond its Pureblood mania? I think that's just speculating what might happen outside the book in our mind. I see nothing in the book that sets of Voldemort as the bad element that's preying on the good element that is Slytherin. I see Slytherins being less admirable people at every turn, in different ways (not just as Pureblood supremists), and with no hint of some magic spell that Voldemort cast to make them as bad as we see. Even in your history here you seem to be saying that it's better now because they no longer have a leader that will bring all their bad qualities together--and that I would say is true, but that doesn't make the Slytherins better as individual personalities. It keeps their potential for hurting others in check,imo. Debbie: I'm quite confused by this last statement. I just don't see how the potential for hurting others is in any way a Slytherin trait. It was a DE trait, and now the DEs are gone. Gryffindors hurt people, too. Magpie: > > Yeah, and the house has been a generic bully house of people jeering > at Harry throughout canon. That, imo, carries more weight than how > JKR may or may not feel about ambition (though I agree she does seem > to often show it's a bad thing). I simply don't see how the story > really shows that *any* of the house traits dealt with the way > Slytherin's are. It's not like people in other houses don't have > problems, but I don't see the story as being about showing the danger > of all the basic house qualities. Gryffindor recklessness is > certainly shown as dangerous, but it doesn't seem bad the way > Slytherin is. > Debbie: I had to read this several times to understand your point, because in my mind the "generic bully house" is not Slytherin. It is Gryffindor. There is a targeted campaign against Harry, but I don't see any Slytherins hexing people because they can, or picking on helpless muggles such as Dudley. Gryffindor arrogance and recklessness produces actions that drive Slytherins to revenge. Perhaps this colors my reading, because I see the Gryffindors as having blood on their hands, too (although, admittedly, I'm not sure JKR shares my view). Magpie: > > Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal > the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't > see Voldemort specifically set up that way. > Debbie: Do you see Voldemort set up as the logical result of the pursuit of Slytherin traits of ambition and cunning? I don't. His ambition was power over everyone and everything, including death, and he was willing to use any means to obtain it, including shredding his own humanity. I think Gryffindor traits could be harnessed equally well to achieve power. In the end, what defeated Voldemort was love, not bravery. Magpie: If the fanaticism is latent, it's part of Slytherin. Debbie talked of Slytherin being "purified" by Tom Riddle's killing, but I thought Jen's view was more in step with the story when she asked if this wasn't a reenactment of Slytherin's leaving the school, since now we have the Heir of Slytherin being ritualistically killed by a Gryffindor. I don't see a "different" Slytherin throwing off their original founder and forging a new way. In fact, far from it being Purified by LV's death, it felt to me like DH *was* Slytherin in its purest form. The fact that Slytherin was known for his own Pure-blood supremist beliefs reinforces that. This was Slytherin out of control, unchecked. Debbie: But I don't read pureblood supremacy as being a characteristic of Slytherin House. Perhaps I think of house characteristics in more Jungian terms, but the traits of the houses are character traits, Pureblood supremacy is an ideology, and the traits of any house can be called upon to support an ideology. The Ministry of Magic is permeated by pureblood favoritism; Arthur Weasley's views are seen as unorthodox, and possibly even dangerous. I don't picture the MoM as controlled by Slytherins so much as controlled by purebloods, whose prejudice is likely more like Slughorn's rather than Voldemort's. Magpie: Whether Tom Riddle believes it or not doesn't really matter--I would say that he does believe it, yes. Almost every character in canon who's said anything bigoted about Pure-blood supremacy has been said to "not really believe it" underneath (it's always those other characters who really believe this stuff). I think they do believe themselves superior (or at least want to, if we get into the anxiety that might be lurking in their unconscious). Debbie: Again, I've never seen this as a *Slytherin* viewpoint. Elsewhere, we see pureblood attitudes such as that expressed by Ernie MacMillan in CoS. Ernie is presented as a generally good character, yet was quite emphatic about his pureblood ancestry. It is a matter of pride with him. Magpie: > No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the > most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, > imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated. Debbie: The death of Voldemort was surgery to remove a particularly ugly tumor. Muggleborn prejudice had a very long history in the WW, and the defeat of Voldemort clearly wouldn't be sufficient to extinguish it. But more treatment -- some chemo to alter WW attitudes generally, not just Slytherin -- was necessary after that. My reading of the epilogue is that some of that treatment has happened. Mike: I presented my canon for Voldemort being the cancer. The pure- bloodism was both the cause and the vehicle used to spread the cancer. And I admit that it was started by Salazar way back in the beginning. But I also read that this cancer was conflated by an hereditary Slytherin not simply House of Slytherin members. He alone was able to bring together the disparate groups of followers, a grouping that fell apart in his absence. Simply put, "It's all about stopping Voldemort, isn't it? These dreadful things that are happening are all down to him..." (HBP p.475) Debbie: Since I used the word "cancer" first, perhaps it would be helpful to explain how I perceive the "cancer." Canon is clear that Slytherin brought the pureblood supremacy cancer to Hogwarts with him. This is confirmed by the OOP Sorting Hat song, as well as the existence of the Chamber of Secrets. However, that doesn't make it a house characteristic. According to Professor Binns (CoS, ch. 9), Hogwarts was founded in an era of persecution by muggles, who feared magic. At first, all was fine, but a disagreement later developed over the question of muggleborns. Salazar Slytherin wished to purge Hogwarts of muggleborns because he believed them to be untrustworthy. This passage makes it seem as though Slytherin's suspicion of muggleborns developed, or at least came to the fore, after Hogwarts' founding, and the Sorting Hat's song in OOP does not dispel this notion, as it states that when the differences first came to light, each had a house and so could take only students that fit their own criteria. And though the Sorting Hat in OOP states that Slytherin himself took only those of the purest blood, we know that the Hat doesn't follow those restrictions. Unquestionably Slytherin House's pureblood prejudices have become well known, and the Sorting Hat itself (since it contains Slytherin's own brains) takes heritage into account in its decisions. However, not until OOP does the Sorting Hat mention that in his day Salazar Slytherin took only purebloods; in fact the narrator comments in OOP that historically the Sorting Hat's song has simply laid out the different qualities looked for by each house. And those qualities are described as "cunning" (PS/SS) and "great ambition" (GoF, though it also noted that Salazar himself was power-hungry). So Voldemort's defeat is necessary to cure the "cancer" of pureblood ideology. However, it does not magically disappear with Voldemort's defeat. It takes time for attitudes to change. Magpie: Harry's intentions were good--the book even barely blames him for what happened to Sirius, because it was LV and Bellatrix's fault (she dies the same way he did). (Harry himself blames Snape and then presumably stops doing that, but without any change scene in canon.) Sirius' running off, too, is done with the best of intentions. Draco's joining the DEs is bad in itself. Sirius was a flwaed hero who is rightly mourned. Crabbe got himself killed. Crabbe "deserved" to die, Sirius was murdered. Draco brought many of his own troubles on himself. Harry was targetted by bad guys and triumphed due to his Gryffindor qualities. (Draco's use of Slytherinish ways of protecting himself in the final battle earns him a punch.) Gryff recklessness might put you in physical danger (in itself something admired in the WW--witness the TWT), but Slytehrins put their souls in danger, which is far worse. Debbie: I can't argue with this as a reasonable reading of the series, but it also works in reverse. I don't like Sirius and tend to think he got what he deserved; his impetuosity and Gryffindor recklessness led to his death, and eventually Harry comes to understand this (though he doesn't think Sirius got what he deserved). Dumbledore got what he deserved, too; his desire for the ring set in motion the chain of events leading to his death. And Wormtail's soul was most certainly endangered. The character who was most callously and tragically murdered, IMO, was Snape, a Slytherin killed by a Slytherin. Julie wrote: It would have been more balanced if even *one* Slytherin had used his/her traits toward something good. Snape used what is commonly considered a Gryffindor trait, courage, to prove his (relative) goodness. (Cunning may have come into it a bit--for instance Snape punishing the Gryffs in DH by sending them to the Forbidden Forest--but both Dumbledore and Harry note that Snape's *best* trait was his un-Slytherinish courage.) Regulus also used courage, and loyalty to another--Kreacher, also not standard Slytherin traits. Debbie: What Snape did was very courageous, but fooling Voldemort for all those years required incredible cunning. At every step, he needed to determine how much to reveal and what to conceal; what actions he needed to take to maintain his cover. I thought it was a textbook example of how Slytherin traits can be used for good. Debbie apologizing for the lateness of my response, but I've been out of town most of the last week [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 21:33:35 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 21:33:35 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176596 > Alla: > > Sorry, I completely disagree, I think she knew all > the facts and **still** placed more importance on what Mulciber et > all > did to Mary. > > I was absolutely convinced that Snape told her his theory. > > "He's ill," said Lily. "They say he's ill__" > " Every month at the full moon?" said Snape. > "I know your theory," said Lily, and she sounded cold. "Why are you > so obsessed with them anyway? Why do you care what they're doing at > night?" - p.674. zgirnius: How do you reconcile your view with > DH, "TPT": > "I heard what happened the other night. You went down that tunnel by the Whomping Willow, and James Potter saved you from whatever's down there-" zgirnius: It seems to me, this says in black and white, that Severus did not tell her that what he faced was Lupin in werewolf form. The exact nature of the danger he faced is surely relevant to determining how serious the danger was, how "Dark". (Because, it was by definition Dark, werewolves in their transformed state are XXXXX rated Dark Creatures - the classification for known wizard-killers (FBAWTFT)). She refused to believe it when it was just a theory, and once he knew Severus did not share his proof with her. It actually sounds like he did not tell her about the incident at all, since Lily says "I heard". We are seeing/hearing his attempt to tell his side of the story, and he can't do his view of it justice, because he is not permitted to mention the most salient point. > Alla: > Eh, do we know any other illnesses at night during full moon at the > potterverse? Personally I have no doubt that Snape sneaked it as > his "theory" and told it to Lily. I mean, she **says** I know your > theory. IMO of course. zgirnius: To evaluate the matter, she would have to believe that it was not a theory, but the truth. Her use of the generic "whatever's down there" indicates she does not believe it. > Alla: > Well, yeah, I know. I was trying to say that her quote IMO can be > read that Voldemort and Harry are not relatives at all, you know? zgirnius: Then I really do not understand the objection. She's not responsible for people who jump to conclusions incorrectly based on accurate statements she makes in interviews. > Alla: > Good point that, but do they practice defending themselves against > all hexes and jinxes or only certain ones? Do you see what I am > saying? zgirnius: In Snape's class, we see Hermione defend herself against a Jelly-Legs Jinx. In other words, yes, the silly ones too. Snape, who is teaching the class, merely instructs them to attempt to jinx one another, and repel those jinxes. > Alla: > I was saying that Snape with Mulciber use dark magic > in the series - sorry that it came up so awkward. I am not also > saying that we know that Snape used dark magic in the same time or > place with Mulciber, ever. Does it make sense? zgirnius: The list of Dark Magic users in the series is extremely long, and certainly includes Severus Snape. I guess I was confused about that, because of your mention of Lily. She mentions it only in connectoin to Mulciber. > Alla: > My point was that JKR seemes to find jinxes amusing in that quote, > not the characters, even though they obviosly do so too. You know? > > If she indeed considers jinxes to be dark magic, I personally find > it odd that she would call it amusing. zgirnius: I guess I disagree. I see a loose similarity between violence (in RL) and Dark Arts (in the Potterverse). Violence can be very mild and silly (physical pranks) or horrific and very evil (death camps, etc.) with a wide range in between. To someone who is not a strict pacifist (neither I, nor, I would venture to guess, Rowling, are) violence is very hard to classify as ethical or not based purely on degree. If I shoot and kill a deranged person like the VA tech shooter to save the lives of many of my classmates and myself, that's OK, while if I shoot and kill someone because I their ethnic background is not to my liking, that's awful. In both cases, I have shot a gun at a person. Based on the amount of slapsticky magic in the books, I think Rowling is quite capable of considering mild physical pranks funny under the right circumstances. And they are the RL equivalents of silly jinxes, I'd say. > Alla: > And is it mentioned that often that they do that? Not sure I > remember that many, but again cannot be sure. > > I mean, we see one lesson with Snape when they do that. Moody taught > them to fight Imperius, which is dark of course. We see dueling > club, which I am not sure proves that they use dark curses, hexes or > whatever, if they are dark. What else? Harry teaches them in DA, but > again, does it prove that what he teaches against is dark? not sure. > > Any other examples? Just asking. zgirnius: Yes, two more than the ones you have compiled, thanks! 1) Umbridge's class in OotP. It is about defensive *theory*, and again we hear about counterjinxes, etc. There is no need to actually practice these things according to her, but it is fairly clear that, if they were to do any practical classes, they ought to be on countering jinxes, hexes, and curses, as this is what the students seem to think will be on their DADA OWL practicals. 2) Hermione's repeated insistence, and Harry's eventual acquiescence, that the Prince's spells are Dark. Langlock and the toenail thing are not evil curses any more than the spell James used to swell someone's head to twice its size was. > Zara: > As I see it, saying 'he/she is a Dark Wizard' in the Potterverse > means not 'he/she uses magic of a sort I would *never* use', > but 'he/she uses magic I would only use under special circumstances, > such as in self-defense, to advance his/her political and personal > agenda through terror'. > Alla: > > Makes sense to me, actually. But I am not sure I want to write I > agree with it, since I am sure somebody will throw it back at me > later on, LOL. So I will just say that I have to think about your > definition. zgirnius, again: Thanks. It is not even really a definition, just my understanding of what Potterverse wizards mean when they speak of Dark Wizards or using the Dark Arts, in a disapproving way. I might say that Adolf Hitler was evil because he and his government killed lots of people. Yet (see example above) I personally think there is such a thing as a justifiable killing of a fellow human being. It is just much easier (as in, shorter!) to say the first, than to say "Adolf Hitler has committed genocide and ethnic cleansing on a large scale against his own population, and launched wars of aggression after which he also did the same to the populations of other countries, and he engaged in extrajudicial killings of opponents of his regime, etc. etc. etc.", even though all that is meant by me in the first statement, you know? If someone called me on this, the longer, detailed answer is what I would respond with. On the other hand, plenty of people who agree that Adolf Hitler was evil, would be unlikely to ask that I clarify my statement. The same, in my opinion, applies to statements like "Voldemort was a Dark Wizard". From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 2 21:25:50 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 17:25:50 -0400 Subject: Winks and nods from JKR in DH Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176597 I agree with 'are you a witch/wizard' as a "full circle" moment. Also, that Ron calms the willow by using Wingardium Leviosa, the very first spell, IIRC, they learned--and the same one that was used to knock out the troll. 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 lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 22:04:09 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:04:09 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176598 > > lizzyben: > > Yeah, it's hypocrisy - hypocrisy that runs right through the novel, > > and right through the series. Without a good definition of the > > distinction, it becomes hypocritical for our heroes to hate someone > > solely for using dark magic. And sometimes I get the feeling that we > > never got a definition because the actual function of dark magic > isn't > > important. > > zgirnius: > I disagree. The definition is clear. All things called jinxes, hexes, > and curses are to differing degrees Dark, so are certain creatures we > see the students learnign abotu, as well as other things specifically > identified as Dark (Horcruxes, Inferimaking, etc.). I suppose we > can't really tell about the Marauders' Map, but since its makers were > an eventual Death Eater and three at least occasional users of the > Dark Arts, I don't see knowing this point as crucial to the > underpinnings of either the moral or magical underpinnings of the > Potetrverse. lizzyben: I'm going to totally agree with you. Your understanding seems like the most consistent view of Dark Magic, & it's consistent w/the DADA defenses that the students learn. So, *both* sides use Dark Magic throughout the novels, to varying degrees. It's not something bad & evil, in and of itself, but a tool or weapon that both sides can use to advance their agenda. zgirnius: > It *is* hypocritical for our heroes to hate people for this reason. > Therefore, our heroes are hypocritical. They are also variously rash, > thoughtless, cruel, arrogant, manipulative, vindictive, and probably > otehr flaws that don't leap to mind at this moment. They are also > variously courageous, compassionate, kind, loving, self- sacrificing, > and probably possess other virtues as well. What it important is not who is using > it, but *why* they are using it. The Death Eaters are using it to > overthrow the government and install a reign of terror against the > Muggleborns and Muggles, killing and torturing those they consider > beneath them indiscriminately. The Order are using it to try to stop > them and protect themselves and others. The kids in school, on both > sides, are using them as kids will, to practise them and learn them > and have fun doing it. lizzyben: Yeah, and there's the real dividing line between good & bad - the political agenda, not the type of magic they use. Death Eaters have a terrorist, bigoted agenda & are killing innocent people to further that agenda. The Order/Harry are opposed to that - and that's why they're the good guys. zgirnius: > To equate the petty cruelty of the Marauders with some atrocity of > the Death Eaters is just silly, IMO. I think the author expected us > to see there is a difference. Just as it is equally silly to equate > Severus' use of Sectumsempra (or whatever it was) against one of two > boys who had just attacked him to such an atrocity. The kids' stuff > is kids' stuff, and the adult stuff is where the moral message was > intended to lie, as I see it. The real 'Dark Wizards' of the series > are those carrying out such atrocities. lizzyben: Agree here as well. The one area I differ is that I believe we *are* supposed to see Dark Magic as more sinister or bad - kid's stuff or not. In addition, Sirius says that he comes from a long line of Dark Wizards, & there's no indication that his ancestors were involved in committing atrocities. So while I'd agree that the "real" Dark Wizards are the Death Eaters, the text itself isn't so clear. Basically, Death Eaters are the ones involved in the stuff you've mentioned, so that's a good term for the designated bad guys here. But the text says that all "dark wizards" or "dark arts" are evil, and that seems to muddle the message a little. > zgirnius: > I did derive a great deal of satisfaction from the victory of > the 'good guys'. But this is because the book made quite clear that > they were in a battle of good vs. evil, and good won. YAY! Not > because the other side used wrong magic (A Muggle such as I could not > care less, really), but because the other side did things even a > Muggle such as myself could see clearly were evil, and intended to > keep on doing more and more of them if not stopped. lizzyben: Still agreeing! The good guys won, and that's a happy ending. And the bad guys were bad because they were bigoted & evil & violent. But also, IMO the books say that they were bad because they used "wrong magic" - Dark Magic, and that connection is made throughout the series. And to the extent that magic is used by all sides, that's somewhat hypocritical or inconsistent. > zgirnius: > I took this differently. I thought what needed to be justified in the > first place was James' hateful behavior, and Sirius grasped that. By > trying to tie it to the adult political/war picture, Sirius attempted > to excuse it. He was wrong to try, it was not excusable. James may > have been a good person, but that was despite what he did to Severus > in that scene, not because of it. lizzyben: Well, here in general Gryffindors seem to hate Slytherins because they use "Dark Magic". That's the reason that Sirius says that James tormented Snape (presumably why Sirius did so as well.) Harry despises Draco because he's into the Dark Arts (though there's really no indication that Draco is at all). And that's where it heads into quite a bit of projection. I do believe that we're supposed to see Slyths, Sirius' family, Durmstrang, etc. as more sinister & evil soley because of the connection to "Dark Magic." And to the extent that everyone uses dark magic, that's a bit odd. I don't think we're supposed to believe that Gryffindors or the Order are using Dark Magic, even though they are. Sirius is telling Harry that it's right to hate people because they use "Dark Magic", though their own side uses the same magic. He implies that it was right for Sirius & James to use hexes to bully Snape as a principled stand against the Dark Arts, when it really wasn't that at all. That *hating* Slytherins or the Dark Arts proves how good & noble you are. Now, I don't know if that's the book's message, or just Sirius' message, you know? It's hard to tell sometimes. But there does seem to be a double standard in play - that it's OK when our House uses a certain spell, but evil Dark Magic when the other House uses the same spells. I like your characterization much better - it's all Dark Magic. What matters is how & why they use it. lizzyben From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 22:15:04 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:15:04 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176599 > zgirnius: > How do you reconcile your view with > > > DH, "TPT": > > "I heard what happened the other night. You went down that tunnel by > the Whomping Willow, and James Potter saved you from whatever's down > there-" > > zgirnius: > It seems to me, this says in black and white, that Severus did not > tell her that what he faced was Lupin in werewolf form. > Alla: > > Eh, do we know any other illnesses at night during full moon at the > > potterverse? Personally I have no doubt that Snape sneaked it as > > his "theory" and told it to Lily. I mean, she **says** I know your > > theory. IMO of course. > > zgirnius: > To evaluate the matter, she would have to believe that it was not a > theory, but the truth. Her use of the generic "whatever's down there" > indicates she does not believe it. Alla: Why? I see and understand where you are reading that she does not believe it as I said upthread, but to me it is open that she has in her mind that possibility too. She does not say after all that he saved you from whatever is down there, but not werewolf. As far as I know she can think that werewolf was that **whatever** down there, She has facts, Snape called them theory, why cannot she evaluate them? > > Alla: > > Well, yeah, I know. I was trying to say that her quote IMO can be > > read that Voldemort and Harry are not relatives at all, you know? > > zgirnius: > Then I really do not understand the objection. She's not responsible > for people who jump to conclusions incorrectly based on accurate > statements she makes in interviews. Alla: LOL, well I guess because I consider my reading to be valid one as well. I mean the reading of the quote that Harry and Voldemort are not related. > Magpie: > As I said in my post, no *I* don't have trouble coming up with > reasons it's bad to have Dementors guarding Azkaban, but what I find > cruel is not always in line with what the books find cruel. I draw > the line before the books in general. Since I've been surprised in > the past at how cruel and callous (imo) characters can be when > they're putting people in their place, it's only arbitrary to me that > Dementors are the place the line is supposed to be drawn. You might shudder when you > think about Dementors--other people shudder when they think about > Marietta's scarred face only that's just what she deserved because > she's a traitor. Alla: I am afraid I still do not understand your argument completely. Sorry if I was not unclear, but I was mainly wondering why it is unclear for you that Dementors are horrible as if it is not described with enough details in the books? I am still not sure I understand. Are you saying the books do not explain enough why Dementors are evil? I do get that you can come up with the reasons why they are bad, but those reasons are in the books with the quotes Jen provided, no? Are you asking why the books show that the dementors are the **most** horrible punishmentn ever? More than anything else? Well, to add to all what Jen said, to me it is also as simple as that they suck out not just your happiness, they suck out your soul. I think IMO it is clear that books draw it as the fate worse than death. Are you just wondering why it is so? What dementors do - I can definitely relate as being the most horrible. Marietta scars' well, yes, I do not think they come close to that. They do not suck out her soul for once. > Magpie: > But knowing it's Dark Magic doesn't make me immediately assume they > couldn't just be something JKR liked having for just that reason so > that the prison would be properly scary. Is the main reason this > punishment is off-limits that JKR's experienced depression and based > them on that? Alla: Um, I do not know if this is the main reason in JKR's head. She mentioned that she came up with the them as metaphors for depression, no? But regardless of what the justification is in her head, to me she clearly expressed why Dementors are the most horrible, offlimit punishment in the book. Losing soul to me does not come nearly in its horribleness to anything else. JMO, Alla. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 22:55:40 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 22:55:40 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (ignoring Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176600 Ceridwen: He also knows what happened to him in the tunnel, what he saw, and what James saved him from. He switches straight from Mary to the Prank, because the two are associated in his mind. He can't tell Lily about Remus, and James, Sirius, Peter and Remus probably wouldn't (until she married James, sort of like a witch or wizard keeping the magic out of a relationship until marriage to keep the secret). Severus probably had his theory beforehand, but he can't say that it's been confirmed. If Lily had known that a) Sirius sent Severus down the tunnel knowing there was a werewolf at the other end and b) there was a werewolf at the other end, would she have seen a difference between whatever Mulciber did to Mary and what Sirius tried to do to Severus? Prep0strus: Yes. Sirius opened a door, and Severus ran through it. That is different from Sirius bringing Lupin to Severus's room and locking him in with it. What Sirius did is not admirable, but it is always very different when you allow someone to put themselves in danger through their own flaws than it is to deliberately hurt someone else. I think JKR is very clear on what she wants the reader to think about Snape's friends and their Dark Arts. I believe we are supposed to read Lily's comments as truth, that what they did was truly horrible. That all these Young Death Eaters are practicing horrible things. And that what the Marauders do is NOT as bad. I think JKR did a piss-poor job of defining the dark arts, especially when it comes to this final book. Interviews calling hexes dark arts, good guys doing `unforgiveables' (and with ease and lack of practice, almost a worse crime on her part), blurring so many lines it's now pretty much a matter of personal opinion. But I don't think her intent here is murky, despite how much she mucked it up through the rest of the book and her interviews. The dark arts are clearly supposed to be terrible. The interest in them is supposed to be associated with death eaters and slytherins sympathetic to them. It's so fashionable to identify with evil characters and smooth over their flaws, and to look for the lack of perfection in good characters and overemphasize their flaws, until everyone is floating around on the same moral ground. Except that they're not. We can point to many many problems JKR had with the way she tried to get things across, with her contradictions and issues, but what she intended is pretty obvious. I don't mind it when people castigate her for creating an `other' and for making Slytherins, etc., her `whipping boys', but it goes too far when we blame the other CHARACTERS for this. We have to judge the characters on what they do. Only the author is responsible for the entire universe. And I don't think you can blame Griffindors for looking down their nose at Slytherins, because in the world, as created, the Slytherins are bad. Dark arts is bad ? some have said dark=slytherin, and that may be, and it may be a flaw of JKR's, but it's not the fault of Griffindors. Griffindors didn't create this `other'. zgirnius: So when Sirius thought Severus was 'into the Dark Arts', he was not actually saying that Severus knew or did things that are materially different from things Sirius knew and did (except that his knowledge may have been prodigious for an eleven-year-old). Sirius was making assumptions that this knowledge and interest would lead Severus to make different choices than Sirius's regarding the Voldemort war. At age eleven, these assumptions were based more on prejudice due to looks/House preference/other factors than any knowledge he had of Snape's personality and interests. (Nil, early on). Prep0strus: Except that he's right. That's what makes all the difference. We can argue how well JKR set all of this up, but the point is, Sirius is RIGHT. Severus's interest and knowledge DID lead him to make different choices. Your assertion that Sirius and Severus didn't know or do things that are materially different is your opinion. I don't think we've been shown enough to be sure, and I think JKR would disagree. I think she wants us to believe they ARE different ? she just didn't do a good job showing us how. But the thing that isn't debatable is that Sirius didn't become a Death Eater, and Severus did. A lot of times there can be debate over means and ends and intents and causes, but sometimes you look at the big picture and see that however much one might want to see into the soul of the dark characters and see light and look into the good characters and see their evil, there comes a point where it's immaterial. Mulciber's a villain. Peter's a traitor. Lily dies protecting her son and Neville is a good guy. It's easy to pick apart the way JKR tells us things ? she's made it too easy, in fact. But I think we're supposed to trust Lily most of the time, and so I try to do that. Assumptions about what isn't told to us is just that, and I'm often confused as to why one would make assumptions that go against the intent ? just because there are holes, doesn't mean we should fill them in such a way as to turn the world upside down. I think maybe I'm complaining a little excessively. It's fun to twist the world around, and I certainly do my fair share of reading between the lines. But JKR meant something when she invented dark magic. She failed miserably in defining it accurately, but I for one will still accept that somehow, in some way I don't understand, there is a difference that is more than mere political spin. Carol, wishing that Tom Riddle had never come near the school to contaminate Slytherin House and ruin the lives of so many people Prep0strus: It's been said before, but Tom Riddle cannot contaminate the house whose founder placed a giant basilisk in the basement to kill muggleborns. He is the most egregious and offensive example of the contamination that already existed. Its place is in a different post, but I have to agree with JKR when she is dumfounded by people who identify with Slytherin. I can easily understand identifying with NONE of the houses, but there was a post that I still have not gotten to respond to in which it was asked what could have redeemed, or made equal, Slytherin in our eyes. Well, among other things a sorting hat song that didn't make them out to be so bad. That gave them something resembling a worthwhile trait, something one might actually want to have as a part of themselves. It must have been done many times before this book, but I think looking at what the hat actually says is a reality check for what Slytherin truly is. And sure, the hat could be lying (it WAS griffindor's!), but when everything good about something has to be made up by the reader, it's just trying too hard. What I would've liked is a song that showed how maybe slytherin house wasn't the breeding ground for the scum of the earth. Adam (Prep0strus), who's sure he's gotten himself into hot water again, but after again reading the Sorting Hat songs in full is just more disgusted with Slytherin, and more disappointed in JKR From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 23:10:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:10:26 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176601 Alla wrote: > Carol earlier: > > Without Snape, there would have been no eleven-year respite for the WW. Order members were being killed off one by one--the McKinnons, > the > > Boneses, the Prewetts, Benjy Fenwick, etc. It was only a matter of > > time for Lupin, Black, and the Potters > > > > > Alla: > > We do not know whether eleven year old respite would have been > possible or not. Carol responds: An eleven-year respite without the events at Godric's Hollow (Lily's self-sacrifice, the deflected AK, etc.)? What could possibly have brought that about? If Snape hadn't revealed the Prophecy, Voldemort wouldn't have gone after the Potters to kill Harry, Snape wouldn't have asked Voldemort to save Lily, Voldemort wouldn't have offered to spare Lily, Lily's sacrifice wouldn't have protected Harry, the AK wouldn't have backfired, Voldie wouldn't have been vaporized, and the war would not have ended. Any other mother sacrificing her life for her child, say Marlene McKinnon or Alice Longbotttom, would have had no more effect than the German mother spreading her arms to protect her children in DH. Even Lily's death would have had no such effect if she hadn't first been offered the chance to stand aside and let LV kill Harry. An eleven-year respite from a Dark Lord whose soul is anchored to the earth by five Horcruxes (at that time)? How? IMO, Godric's Hollow is unique and nothing else could have "killed" Voldemort, released people from the Imperius curse, and made the capture of the DEs possible. Life would have continued as it was at the time of VW1 or gotten steadily worse. And the Potters would have been targeted by the DEs just as the other Order members were. Their likelihood of survival in a WW run by Voldemort would be small and Harry's chances for happiness equally small. (He would not have grown up like Ron in a relatively normal WW. Nor would Ron have grown up that way. Voldie would have been in charge. The only person who was stopping him from completely taking over the WW was Dumbledore, who couldn't or wouldn't kill him because he knew about the Horcruxes. > > > Carol: > > The only thing keeping Voldemort from taking over the Ministry, and, from there, the WW, had Snape not revealed the partial Prophecy > would > > have been Dumbledore. There would have been no Chosen One without > LV's > > acting to thwart the Prophecy. > > Alla: > > Yes, there would have been **just Harry** - exactly my point. Carol: "Just Harry"--a normal wizard boy with no more powers than Ron or Neville in a world ruled by Voldemort? Even if he survived, what chance would he or any normal wizard or witch have had of happiness? His parents were in hiding even before the Fidelius Charm and in danger of being killed as Order members before that. No one trusted anyone else; everyone feared the Dark Mark appearing over their house and coming home to find family members dead. The Order members were outnumbered by the DEs (twenty to one, if we believe Lupin) and were being picked off one by one. Wonderful, happy state of affairs, perfect for "just Harry" to grow up in peace and happiness. Not even the eleven years of peace caused by Lily's sacrifice, just a continuation of VW 1 with ever worsening conditions until they reached the state of affairs we see in DH or worse. Somehow, I think that the only way Harry could have had a happy, normal wizarding childhood would be if Voldemort had never been born. Harry becomes "Just Harry" after Voldemort is killed and the soul bit in his own head is destroyed. Harry the ordinary wizard kid could never have accomplished what Harry the Chosen One accomplished. And even that is only possible because Voldemort was vaporized when Harry was fifteen months old. > Carol earlier: > > > Essentially, if Dumbledore could have stopped Voldemort by himself, he would have done so. He couldn't. > > Alla: > > We do not know that. He may have destroyed all Horcruxes himself for all I know. Carol: On the contrary, we know what happened when he tried--a dead hand (he would have died if not for Snape) and no one to save him when he'd drunk the potion in the cave. Canon makes it clear that DD could *not* have destroyed the Horcruxes all by himself, or lived to battle Voldemort had he made the attempt. > Carol: > >> He revealed the partial Prophecy, triggering the events at > Godric's > > Hollow. He begged Voldemort to save Lily, making her survival > possible > > and her death a self-sacrifice rather than a planned murder, which > in > > turn gave Harry the blood protection (extended by DD to the > Dursleys) > > and made Harry's survival possible. > > Alla: > > Um, yes. Just looks horrifying instead of heroic to me. Carol: I'm not calling it heroic. I'm showing that Harry would not be alive (or the Chosen One) if not for Snape. IOW, I'm showing Snape's importance to the plot, not his heroism in this instance. Alla: > > And he of course was saving Harry's life, to me saving son of Lily, but he was saving his life of course and did those other heroic things unrelated to Harry, of course he did. > > My point was that **without Snape** Harry had a chance to have a normal life without Snape needing to save his life even, I do not see how anything that you wrote refutes it. Carol: And my point is that, regardless of Snape's motives, without Snape, Harry would not be alive at all. And that includes teaching the Duelling Club the Disarming Charm. No other teacher taught Harry that all-important life-saving spell. Alla: > And Harry would have had a loving mum and dad, maybe. > Carol: Maybe. But given the way that things were going in VW1 and the number of people in the Order photograph who died shortly after it was taken, not to mention PP's spying, I'd say that their chances for survival, much less happiness, were small. Lupin says of the first Order: "We were outnumbered twenty to one by the Death Eaters and they were picking us off one by one" (OoP 177). Harry thinks about the photo of the Order members, half of whom would be dead within a few weeks: "He could still see his parents beaming up at him from the tattered old photograph, unaware that their lives, like so many of those around them, were drawing to a close" (OoP Am. ed. 178). Granted, the Potters were specifically killed because of the Prophecy, but the others weren't. The McKinnons, the Bones, Benjy Fenwick, Caradoc Dearborn, the Prewetts, and Dorcas Meadowes were all killed solely for being members of the Order (or related to order members, in the case of the Bones and McKinnon children). The WW during Voldie's first rise to power was no safe place to raise children. Black tells Harry, "In the old days [Voldemort] had huge numbers at his command; witches and wizards he'd bullied into following him, his faithful Death Eaters, a great variety of Dark creatures" (93). In GoF, Mr. Weasley describes the atmosphere of terror that the WW lived under: "You Know Who and his followers sent the Dark Mark into the air whenever they killed. The terror it inspired. . . . Just picture coming home and finding the Dark Mark hovering over your house and knowing what you're going to find inside" (142). We get glimpses in all the later books, especially HBP and DH, of what life is like outside Hogwarts with Voldemort in charge. Had there been no eleven-year respite, nothing to stop Voldemort, life for "Just Harry," ordinary wizard kid with Order member parents and a Muggle-born mother would have been no picnic. And, had it not been for Godric's Hollow and the soul bit that lodged in Harry, giving him a link to Voldemort's mind and emotions, no one, not even Dumbledore, could have destroyed Voldemort. Yes, Harry was deprived of his parents and sent to live with Aunt Petunia in part because of Snape. But had Snape not revealed the partial Prophecy to Voldemort and later begged him to spare Lily, matters would have been much worse. Voldie would have remained in power and even if Dumbledore kept him in check, Dumbledore would not live forever. Only Voldemort had Horcruxes anchoring him to earth, and he could wait. Snape's actions--regardless of his motives--made Harry's survival possible. And throughout the books, he taught and protected Harry. Bezoars, Expelliarmus, Polyjuice Potion, even the discovery that Harry is a Parselmouth all trace back to Snape. So, of course, does that useful little charm Muffliato. Snape saves Harry's life on numerous occasions and imparts essential information and tools in DH. Without Snape, where would the HP books be? Where would Harry be? Not a happy boy living a normal life but just another suffering wizard kid with no more chance than you or I of defeating Voldemort. My only question, and it's purely hypothetical, is how much power and influence *Dumbledore* would have had if Voldie had not been vaporized at GH and how long he could have held out against a Voldemort determined to kill him and take over Hogwarts, especially since DD knew that Voldemort could not be killed. Without a Chosen One, DD would certainly have tried to destroy the Horcruxes by himself, and we saw how well *that* worked out. I think that the state of affairs in DH (minus DDM!Snape) would have been reached much earlier, with or without the Elder Wand. LV might even have killed DD and made the Sword of Gryffindor into his sixth Horcrux. Carol, noting that the only way for Harry to be "Just Harry" and live a normal wizarding life was to defeat Voldemort, which would not have been possible without Eavesdropper!Snape and the whole Snape subplot From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Sun Sep 2 23:21:22 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:21:22 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic / Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176602 > Alla: > > I mean, if she would have stopped with defusing " Voldemort Harry's > father/grandfather", I would have seen nothing contradictory", BUT > we know that Voldemort and Harry are related now, no? > > Oy. Rowena: 'Related' in the sense of being descended from two brothers who lived centuries ago, not a particularly close tie IMO. > Alla: > > Right, that is if you limit Dark Magic to Horcruxes or Inferi. If > you expand Dark Magic to majorly hurting other people, then I say we > get a different picture. Like, sure for example I think Harry used > Sectusemptra as in using Dark magic, since Draco was hurt in a major > way. I think Harry was justified doing it, but IMO it was a Dark > magic. Only to twist Mike's words a little bit, I would call it Dark > magic with intent to defend himself if that makes sense. Rowena: Given that Snape himself, inventor of the spell, calls it Dark Magic I'd say it's safe to define it as such. > Alla: > > Either that OR what they used were not dark magic, but instead JKR > making things up on the fly. Or maybe what they used was less > serious dark magic. > > I mean, if JKR would meant to stress that hexes and jinxes are big, > nasty dark magic, do you think she would have called them amusing? Rowena: I think maybe she just meant that there was a touch of malice in hexes and jinxes making them a bit gray rather then pitch black. > Alla: > > I guess we are at agree to disagree point then - sort of. Because > while I > agree that Goblin had clear intent to betray Harry to much worse > fate than Harry intended to not giving him sword right away, I > still think that two wrongs do not make right. Rowena: Both Harry and Griphook were definitely in the wrong. However I can't see the latter's demand or theft of the sword as justified even under Goblin law unless Griphook made Gryffindor's sword or is the legal heir of the Goblin that did. The principle of a work of craft belonging to the maker certainly does not translate into *any* Goblin having a right to *any* work made by a Goblin. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 23:28:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:28:38 -0000 Subject: D... M... / D... a.../ Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176603 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > > Steve: > > > >> I'm not excusing Harry. I think he should have been > > honest and 'up front'. But, in my mind, Griphook's > > betrayal was far worse than Harry's. > > Alla: > > I guess we are at agree to disagree point then - sort > of. Because while I agree that Goblin had clear intent > to betray Harry to much worse fate than Harry intended > to not giving him sword right away, I still think that > two wrongs do not make right. > > Alla > bboyminn: No question that two wrongs don't make a right, but certainly you must agree that crimes and wrongs come in degrees. I mean we don't give people a death sentence for Jay-Walking, and we don't hand out $20 citations for murder. There is a definite element of degree and measure here. In a sense, we see in Harry and Griphook the same attitude we see in Ron when he becomes Prefect; I'm going to get him and his mates before they get me and mine. I feel that Griphook knew from the beginning he was going to betray Harry. And by ever sense and definition of the word, he did. Now Harry was merely fiddling with technicalities. He was going to live up to his end of the bargain. He was going to give the Sword, he just never said when. I'm sorry but that seems very small compared to what Griphook did. And while we are at it, let's take a moment to step back and look at Goblins as a whole. These are not fluffy little bunnies. They seem mean and cruel, and unmoved by the intent or act of twisting a deal to suit themselves, and even by outright betrayal. So, two wrongs really don't make a right, but one really bad and disastrous wrong is certainly worse than a technical misunderstanding. Still, do have a tiny bit of sympathy for Griphook. I think it meant something to him that Harry would treat him and negotiate with him as an equal, and would agree to something that I'm sure Griphook never thought Harry would agree to. I think to some extent, Griphook needed to hear Harry say it. Say that he would give him the Sword. Once that little courtesy was out of the way, Griphook planned to screw Harry royally. But then, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 2 23:39:20 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:39:20 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176604 > > Alla: > > > > We do not know whether eleven year old respite would have been > > possible or not. > > Carol responds: > An eleven-year respite without the events at Godric's Hollow (Lily's > self-sacrifice, the deflected AK, etc.)? What could possibly have > brought that about? Alla: I do not know. Other unique event, maybe? Other mother sacrificing her life for other child? maybe something totally different. My point is I cannot exclude it from the varieties. Carol: And the Potters would have been targeted by the DEs > just as the other Order members were. Their likelihood of survival in > a WW run by Voldemort would be small and Harry's chances for happiness > equally small. Alla: And nevetheless they defied Vodlemort three times, didn't they? I think they would have happily took that chance if offered instead of being prophecy couple. IMO of course. Many Order members survived the first war, I do not see what would have stopped Potters from being one of them. Not a guarantee sure, but a chance? Definitely in my view. Carol: (He would not have grown up like Ron in a relatively > normal WW. Nor would Ron have grown up that way. Voldie would have > been in charge. The only person who was stopping him from completely > taking over the WW was Dumbledore, who couldn't or wouldn't kill him > because he knew about the Horcruxes. Alla: How do you know all that? Other order members were also fighting. Maybe Dumbledore would have shared the Horcruxes existance with somebody else and that somebody else would have figured out how to go on destroying them. > > Alla: > > > > Yes, there would have been **just Harry** - exactly my point. > > Carol: > "Just Harry"--a normal wizard boy with no more powers than Ron or > Neville in a world ruled by Voldemort? Even if he survived, what > chance would he or any normal wizard or witch have had of happiness? > His parents were in hiding even before the Fidelius Charm and in > danger of being killed as Order members before that. Alla: Huh? As much of the chance as any child during the war as far as I am concerned and IMO **much** bigger one than the child of targeted parents who went in hiding because of Snape. > > Alla: > > > > We do not know that. He may have destroyed all Horcruxes himself for > all I know. > > Carol: > On the contrary, we know what happened when he tried--a dead hand (he > would have died if not for Snape) and no one to save him when he'd > drunk the potion in the cave. Canon makes it clear that DD could *not* > have destroyed the Horcruxes all by himself, or lived to battle > Voldemort had he made the attempt. Alla: No, we do not know that IMO. We know that Dumbledore got hurt NOT because he could not destroy Horcrux, but because he got overcome by desire to see his dead loved ones - in other words IMO it has nothing to do with Horcruxes and everything with Dumbledore's state of mind. Would he had done same thing? Maybe, maybe not IMO. > > Alla: > > > > Um, yes. Just looks horrifying instead of heroic to me. > > Carol: > I'm not calling it heroic. I'm showing that Harry would not be alive > (or the Chosen One) if not for Snape. IOW, I'm showing Snape's > importance to the plot, not his heroism in this instance. Alla: And I am not arguing that Snape is not important to the plot. Of course he is. I am just strongly disagreeing that Snape had initial **positive** influence on Harry's life. But for him revealing the prophecy Harry would not have been a Chosen one, sure, but neither would he had been directly targeted by Voldemort in my view. > Carol: > And my point is that, regardless of Snape's motives, without Snape, > Harry would not be alive at all. And that includes teaching the > Duelling Club the Disarming Charm. No other teacher taught Harry that > all-important life-saving spell. < BIG SNIP> Alla: I guess we arrived at agree to disagree point then. I believe that Harry's chances of better life had been much stronger had Snape kept his mouth shut and did not let Voldemort have that prophecy. Snape as catalyst of the story? Well, sure he was, he started all that crap for Harry IMO. But somebody who made Harry Potter of Harry Potter as positive thing which what I was originally responding to? No way, not IMO. I am sure WW in a round about way has reasons to be grateful to Snape - after all, indeed in the round about way because of Snape giving that prophecy they got their savior. But Harry to be grateful? I am not saying you are saying it, just go on a tangent by the way. I would say **no way**, **no how** and the fact that Harry is admiring Snape at the end, just makes me like him even more, but certainly NOT do the same. Respect Snape for saving Harry life? Sure, but be grateful for something he started and tried to rectify? As I said not IMO. He did what somebody who decided to leave evil master was supposed to do if he was truly intent on rectifying his sins IMO. Alla. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 2 23:44:10 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:44:10 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic/ Ministry and Dementors/ Snape's role LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176605 Alla: Sorry, I completely disagree, I think she knew all the facts and **still** placed more importance on what Mulciber et all did to Mary. Ceridwen: Lily didn't know all the facts. She didn't know what was at the end of the tunnel: "They don't use Dark Magic, though." She dropped her voice. "And you're being really ungrateful. I heard what happened the other night. You went sneaking down that tunnel by the Whomping Willow, and James Potter saved you from whatever's down there --" (US DH 674) The phrase "whatever's down there" means she doesn't know what's down there. One fact lacking. Another fact lacking is that Severus only had access to the tunnel because Sirius gave him directions, confirmed by Remus Lupin in PoA: "...you see, Sirius played a trick on him which nearly killed him, a trick which involved me --" (US PoA 356) *(snip)* "Sirius thought it would be - er - amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to get in after me. *(snip)* Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anybody, but from that time on he knew what I was..." (US PoA 357) Severus was forbidden by Dumbledore to tell anyone that Remus was a werewolf. He mentioned his theory before going down there. Lily makes a general statement about Severus being obsessed with the Marauders at the same time she says she knows his theory. The theory preceeds the Prank, IMO, because she doesn't tie it to the quote above. She ties it instead to the Marauders not using Dark Magic. This was merely an accusation of being ungrateful to James for saving him. She also doesn't tell Severus that he was dumb for following Sirius's directions, which I think she was not too shy to do if she knew that Sirius had set him up to see the werewolf. Lily Evans does not seem to be a shy girl, she speaks her mind. Can you imagine her overlooking Sirius's involvement in the Prank if she knew about it? In this same scene, same page, she agrees that James is a "toerag". Why would she cut Sirius slack when she doesn't cut James any? Ceridwen. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Sun Sep 2 23:58:19 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 23:58:19 -0000 Subject: D... M... / D... a.../ Goblin's view on property In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176606 > bboyminn: > And while we are at it, let's take a moment to step > back and look at Goblins as a whole. These are not > fluffy little bunnies. They seem mean and cruel, and > unmoved by the intent or act of twisting a deal to > suit themselves, and even by outright betrayal. Rowena: On the other hand Goblins seem to be as variable as humans (wizarding or otherwise). Bill has Goblin friends - or at least Goblins he 'likes and trusts' and makes it clear not all Goblins subscribe to the extreme 'everything made by Goblins belongs to Goblins' line followed by Griphook. Relations between the two species have been complicated by misunderstandins due to cultural differences, distrust, deliberate bad faith and downright malice from both sides creating a conflict that will not be easy to resolve in nineteen years, maybe get a start on but not solve. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 2 23:56:29 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 19:56:29 EDT Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176607 Mike: All I can suggest is a common sense approach. When someone uses a spell for school boy pranks, something that won't have lasting *physical* effects, we shouldn't read that as Dark, imo. I say physical because trying to judge emotional is way too subjective and takes into account way too many variables that cannot be assigned simply to the spell. Julie: This is a continuing issue in the HP books from the reader's POV. Every time you try to nail down a definition--like saying Dark Magic is that which leaves lasting physical effects--something will come up that doesn't fit the definition. For instance, by your definition above Hermione practiced Dark Magic when she jinxed/hexed the DA parchement. Marietta's purple pustules/acne was long-lasting, and left permanent scarring, according to JKR. At the same time JKR said that she "loathes" traitors, so I think it's pretty clear there that she wasn't too concerned with adhering to any consistent definition of Dark Magic within her imagined universe, but with inflicting a highly deserved--by her standards--punishment on Marrietta. It's the same thing with Harry using a Crucio on Amycus. When she writes, JKR isn't concerning herself with previous implications or definitions presented in the books (such as Crucio being an "Unforgivable" Curse, that Harry couldn't perform the curse against Bellatrix before because he just didn't have it in him to deliberately use torture even against someone clearly evil, etc), but with what gvies her the most satisfying emotional payoff in any given scene. It's this inconsistency, and IMO JKR's devotion to writing what works for her in the moment rather than what fits coherently with past canon of the books, that is most irritating to many of us. (And she absolutely does not *have* to be consistent if she doesn't want to be. It's her story, thus her right. But it does leave the stories open to criticism based on lack of consistency/cohesiveness.) Mike: OTOH, magic which has sinister consequences appears to be classified as Dark. There also seems to be the added elemant of intent thrown in there. So, it would seem that a memory charm could be used for Dark purposes, if it were used in the way Crouch Sr used on Bertha or Tom Riddle used on Morfin. Julie: But is a memory charm ever considered "Dark" magic? A wizard can use virtually *any* spell for sinister purposes, to injure or even kill another wizard, but we never hear that you can use basic spells in a way that makes them "Dark" instead of "Light" (or simply not-Dark). It's all just very inconclusive! (And one could say JKR wrote it that way so each of her readers could create their own mindsets about what constitutes "Dark" magic and other ambiguously defined concepts within the HP universe, much as she left the character Snape deliberately ambiguous until DH. The difference from Snape is that the many conceptual ambiguities clearly weren't deliberate on her part, or she wouldn't be trying to define them after the fact in interviews, IMO.) Mike: Finally, we are suppose to "hate the Slytherins" because JKR set them up as the "bad guy" house from book/day 1. YMMV, but I think that it is just as simple as that. Any attempts to shoehorn this series into a more complicated moralistic story will meet with frustration, imo. And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys is a denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to terms with personally. Mike, who has no problem accepting the Slytherins as the bad guys but takes into consideration Voldemort and his kin's influence on the house going all the way back to the namesake founder. And therefore figures that with that influence gone, the house has a chance for moderating that bad guy image. Julie: Exactly. It was unclear until DH was published whether there *was* a deeper and more complicated moralistic story going on beneath the surface. Many, many readers assumed there was such an underlying story, which would be revealed in DH, and would in turn reveal JKR as the extremely talented author (in terms of nuance and complexity of writing) that many of us hoped or assumed she was. Alas, it did not come to pass. She is a talented author in terms of inventiveness and storytelling, just not quite the er, wizard at tying up details into the truly cohesive universe that some of us expected. I believe it is a very valid criticism to say the books would have been better in quality if many of the ambiguous concepts like Dark Magic had been defined in a meaningful and coherent way, and if the hanging plot threads that ended up abandoned (like House Elf rights) had been given some actual resolution (or had never been started in the first place). The only thing left, as you say and I do agree, is to enjoy the stories on their *actual* terms, as inventive and entertaining, but not as clever moral allegories, or tightly woven stories in terms of cohesive plotting. Which I am willing to do, though I still feel free to insert my .02 cents into discussion like this one! Julie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Sep 3 00:04:41 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:04:41 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176608 > Juli: Do you think Ron would accept to name his child after Hermione's > ex-boyfriend? Or that Hermione would allow Ron to name her daughter as Ron's teenager crush? I don't see it happening, not in a million years. Rowena: Actually I think Hermione might think it a bit of a giggle. Rosmerta was never a real rival for Ron's affections after all and she did seem to find his crush more funny than anything. Besides 'Rose' is a very pretty name and the WW does seem to have a thing for flowers. But why she agreed to inflict a name like 'Hugo' on her innocent infant son I cannot explain. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Sep 3 00:14:04 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:14:04 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176609 Has anybody else noticed that eldest sons *always* seem to have their father's name as a middle name? 'William Arthur' 'Albus Percival (etc)' and so forth. And Ginny, the only daughter has her mother's name for a middle name. If this is some kind of general rule than Harry's oldest son is 'James Harry Potter' and his daughter 'Lily Ginevra Potter'. While Ron and Hermione's two are 'Hugo Ronald Weasley' and 'Rose Hermione Weasley' which frankly are not very mellifluous combinations IMO. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 3 00:48:23 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2007 20:48:23 EDT Subject: Snape's role Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176610 Alla: My point was that **without Snape** Harry had a chance to have a normal life without Snape needing to save his life even, I do not see how anything that you wrote refutes it. Was it a guarantee? Surely not. But I stand by my opinion that without Snape James and Lily would not have been a prophecy couple and had a chance to survive first war, just as Moody, Lupin and other members of the order did. And Harry would have had a loving mum and dad, maybe. Julie: I go by canon here, and canon is that Voldemort was *winning* the war. There is no indication that Dumbledore had any clue about the mulitple horcruxes at this point, let alone could have hunted them all down before Voldemort did win, take over the WW, and wipe out what was left of the Order. This also makes the fact that Lupin, Moody, et al survived the first war actually irrelevant, because they only survive if Voldemort doesn't win, which wasn't what was happening. Is it *possible* that the Order could have turned things around, that Voldemort might have lost, and that Harry might have ended up alive with his loving mum and dad? Sure it's possible. But from canon it is very unlikely. It's a bit more likely that *Harry* might have survived, assuming LV didn't as a matter of course kill the young children of Order members (I can't recall the canon on that issue) as they were no real threat and could be "retrained" to his views once he took over the WW. Finally, if Snape's did make Harry's survival possible, and everything that went with it, including the eventual defeat of Voldemort (and it's a very good possibility that he did), so what? People's actions have unintended consequences, which by definition are unrelated to intent or to their "goodness" or "badness." (We can say for instance that without Harry sparing Wormtail, Voldemort might never have gotten his body back, and the WW might have been spared the second war, Lupin, Tonks, Fred, et al might still be alive, etc, etc.) If Snape did "save" Harry and the WW, he was joined in this act by Voldemort, who also set this course by acting on that silly prophecy. And I see no reason why Harry would or should thank Snape-- nor why Snape would expect or want thanks--as it was just one more in a long line of unanticipated consequences that make up much of the story of human (and WW) existence! Julie ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Sep 3 00:54:43 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:54:43 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (ignoring Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176611 > Adam (Prep0strus), who's sure he's gotten himself into hot water > again, but after again reading the Sorting Hat songs in full is just > more disgusted with Slytherin, and more disappointed in JKR Ceridwen: Acutally, just lukewarm water. Okay? Prepostrus: It's so fashionable to identify with evil characters and smooth over their flaws, and to look for the lack of perfection in good characters and overemphasize their flaws, until everyone is floating around on the same moral ground. Ceridwen: It's equally as fashionable to set the characters at extremes, so the good are ridiculously good and the bad are the worst there is. Rowling did a poor job, in my opinion, of showing a virtuous Lily and an evil and getting worse Severus. This is what I'm trying to show, what I actually see in the text, not some fashionable reading. Thanks, but a fashion plate I'm not. Prepostrus: Except that they're not. We can point to many many problems JKR had with the way she tried to get things across, with her contradictions and issues, but what she intended is pretty obvious. I don't mind it when people castigate her for creating an `other' and for making Slytherins, etc., her `whipping boys', but it goes too far when we blame the other CHARACTERS for this. We have to judge the characters on what they do. Only the author is responsible for the entire universe. And I don't think you can blame Griffindors for looking down their nose at Slytherins, because in the world, as created, the Slytherins are bad. Dark arts is bad ? some have said dark=slytherin, and that may be, and it may be a flaw of JKR's, but it's not the fault of Griffindors. Griffindors didn't create this `other'. Ceridwen: Blaming the characters? We do that all the time here. Dumbledore is a puppet master, Snape is abusive, the Weasleys are the ESE-est family in the WW, etc. We go back and forth between plot and story, between characters and author, between what I see and what someone else sees, all the time. Within the context of the story, I certainly can blame Lily for judging without all the facts. I can also see that she doesn't know she doesn't have all the facts. I can see that maybe Severus shouldn't have trusted Sirius any farther than he could throw him like a Muggle, but I can also see a boy this age grabbing the chance and running with it. Harry gets obsessed with people and foolishly follows them. I blame him for that, but I also blame his upbringing for making him more secretive than he should have been. Should I not be reading things this way, and instead trying to psychoanalyze Rowling? I can't do that because I'm not an analyst. Should this board be strictly for analysts? How are we supposed to discuss the books, the story part, if we don't blame or praise the characters? These are the legitimate vehicles Rowling used to get her story across. She gave these characters personality traits, lives, deaths in some cases, which is why I call her the Creatrix of the Potterverse. I don't see how we should not blame, etc., the characters when we discuss the story. Just because Gryffindors didn't create Slytherin as "Other" doesn't mean we can't say they're wrong for assuming that all Slytherins are evil. That would fall under the context of the story, not the plot. What Gryffindors do with the world they are given, most certainly can fall on the Gryffindors' shoulders. Ceridwen. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 3 00:57:23 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 00:57:23 -0000 Subject: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / Witchy Sewing / FingerRemoving Jinx Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176612 Bart wrote in : << In DH, it is mentioned that Peeves has been around 25 years. >> I found the quote to which you refer. US DH p602. "Yes, Peeves, you fool, Peeves! Haven't you been complaining about him for a quarter of a century? Go and fetch him at once!" (Minerva to Argus) That could mean that Peeves had been there for 25 years so before that, Filch didn't need to complain about him. It could mean that Filch had been there for 25 years, and Peeves was there before him. I thought it meant the latter, that Peeves has been there for centuries, but only in recent decades has Filch been complaining about him. However, I also thought that Filch has been there longer than 25 years. Leah wrote in : << I don't think that Snape wanted Lily kept alive for his personal pleasure. He wanted her alive because he could not bear to be in a world in which she did not exist. He may have hoped that she might come to care for him, but I think that's as far as it went. >> I believe you're right about Snape's desire, but Voldemort would expect Snape to spend time with her and would insist that Snape keep her under control, as in not seeking vengeance for the lives of her husband and her child. Steve bboyminn wrote in : << I'm sure they've concluded that Voldemort would have been bad for business, and what is bad for business is bad for Slytherins. Stability breeds prosperity. So, it is too the advantage of Slytherins, who want to prosper, to promote stability in the world. So, collectively they have a new set of priorities. >> You know I agree with you that saying that Voldemort would be bad for business is a considerable understatement. But saying that Slytherins are ambitious isn't the same as saying that Slytherins want to prosper -- people can be just as ambitious for game, winning a competition (e.g. the Olympics), or power, as for prosperity. (Various fiction has presented people of talent and inspiration who were insanely ambitious to create the great works of art of which they believed they were capable, but I don't know if that happens in the real world.) Trying to view Crabbe and Goyle as ambitious suggests only an ambition to be valued servants of the biggest baddy on the block. (Goyle still may be ambitious to serve The Malfoys, but Crabbe pretty clearly disowned that as his ambition.) But neither ambition or prosperity is especially a WATER trait. Prosperity is more Earth than any of the other Elements, and I think Ambition might go with Fire -- with Gryffindors being ambitious for fame and glory, most not satisfied to be brave and chivalrous if few people know about it. Slytherins should have some watery characteristics if they're the Water house. What watery traits are Slythie traits? Secrecy: they like to know secrets and find out secrets and keep secrets and sometimes even keep their glory secret ("still waters run deep"). Doing research to discover new facts about nature or magic also falls under discovering secrets. Being good at hunches may also fall into this trait. Sexual/Sensual: they were all over each other in their railcar compartment when Harry spied on them. Sensitive feelings, as in their feelings are easily hurt, whereupon they want revenge. Awareness of other people's feelings, used to know how best to taunt the other person, or to know how to manipulative the person (Draco knows Ron's sore point is his poverty and Severus goaded Sirius into drawing wand against him in the dining room of 12GP). Versatile: if one plan doesn't work, make another. If the means to success are embarrassing, do them anyway, just secretly. As water can be liquid, steam, or ice, and can break big rocks by freezing into little ice in little cracks of the rocks, and (when liquid) can find even the tiniest leak in its container... There must be a better word for this characteristic than 'versatile' or 'unscrupulous'. Not 'persistent' because that's as much an Earth trait as a Water trait. Jen wrote in : << there wasn't even any *ice cream* anymore for crying out loud! >> It's tragic that Florian Fortescue was captured by the enemy (and presumably tortured before being killed), but saying there was no ice cream anymore is a bit of an exageration. There would still be home-made ice cream from householdy witches like Molly and Andromeda, or householdy wizards I suppose, and House Elves could make even gourmet ice cream like Florian's. Mike wrote in : << This poverty issue I never quite understood. I mean, they can do magic so why don't they fix up the clothes? Why didn't Molly do some repairs and remodeling of Ron's dress robes? Why doesn't Eileen modify Sev's smock into something resembling a real shirt? They have the materials, just fix them up a little. C'mon mums! >> Madam Malkin, the professional robemaker, doesn't seem to use much textile or sewing magic, either. PS/SS: "In the back of the shop, a boy with a pale, pointed face was standing on a footstool while a second witch pinned up his long black robes. Madam Malkin stood Harry on a stool next to him) slipped a long robe over his head, and began to pin it to the right length." At the very least, she should be able to stand him on the stool and then wave her wand to make the fabric fold up and the pins fly into their places, an even hem at the first try without all that hassle of pinning and stepping away to look and stepping back to change the pin one just did ... Does she have to sew the hem by pointing her wand at a threaded needle which will sew (as if there were an invisible seamstress) only as long as she keep her wand pointed? She ought to be able to just tap her wand on the pinned hem to transform it to a sewn hem. In fact, rather than putting hems up or down at all, she should be able to wave her wand and cause the bottom of the robe to grow or shrink so that it was a perfect fit. Maybe clothing, as well as food, is one of the Five Principal Exceptions to whatever law of Transfiguration Hermione quoted. Cathy D wrote in : << Just one that sounds *really* amusing to me, from the HP-Lexicon: "finger-removing jinx: Removes the target person's fingers. Goodwin Kneen's wife, Gunhilda, hit him with this jinx after he came home a bit late from celebrating Ilkley's win in Quidditch (QA3)." I imagine Goodwin Kneen found it quite irritating....to say the least. >> OTOH the wizarding folk are a lot better than us Muggles at replacing lost fingers. Molly could have grown George's ear back if it had been removed by a Severing Spell instead of by Sectumsempra. From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Sep 3 01:14:36 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:14:36 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > So what is it then? If mean-spirited, violent, aggressive spells > aren't dark, if even unforgiveable curses aren't dark - what is dark > then? Why are we supposed to hate the Slytherins for using "dark > magic" when we don't even know what that is, or how it's any > different from what our guys are doing? Since I'm not myself a practitioner of any sort of magic(k), I thought it might be useful to see what sort of views are out there about the nature of "good" and "bad" magic; my first port of call was Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_magic), and what I read there is interesting in the distinctions it draws, although it doesn't in the end make JKR's magic any more of a piece. In what follows, I've prefixed quotations from that site with *. I hope this is acceptable List practice. * BLACK AND WHITE MAGIC * * The differences between black magic and white magic are debatable, * but theories generally fall within the following broad categories: * * All as One: All forms of magic are evil, or black, magic. This view * generally associates black magic with Satanism. The religions that * maintain this opinion include most branches of Christianity, Islam, * Judaism, and Hinduism. Some people on the left-hand path would * agree that all magic, whether called "white" or "black," is the * same. These people would not contend that all magic is evil so much * as that morality is in the eyes of the beholder -- that any magic * can have both good and bad consequences depending on who judges * those consequences. In this school of thought, there is no * separation between benevolent and malevolent magic because there is * no universal morality against which magic can be measured. We can safely reject this as Rowling's view. Many of her critics hold it, of course; it is, at least, a coherent position. * Dark Doctrine: Black magic refers to the powers of darkness, * usually seen from a Left-Hand Path point of view. This may or may * not contrast with White magic, depending on the sorcerer's * acceptance of dualism. And this. * Formal Differences: The forms and components of black magic are * different, due to the different aims or interests of those casting * harmful spells, than those of white. Harmful spellcasting tends to * include symbolism which seems hazardous or harmful to human beings, * such as sharp, pointed, prickly, caustic, and hot elements combined * with very personal objects from the spell's target (their hair, * blood, mementos, etc.). This distinction is primarily observable in * folk magic, but pertains to other types of magic also. The symbolism referred to here is interesting because there are two procedures in HP which it recalls. The first is the ritual that Voldemort and Peter perform in the graveyard, arguably the major turning point in the series ? it's difficult to see it as anything but the Darkest of Dark Magic, and it resonates as such for the reasons that skelkins gave in Post #40118. The other, of course, is Polyjuice Potion, which is possibly, in terms of what it's used for in the narrative, the most important object in canon ? it's a plot device in CoS and DH and the entire narrative of GoF depends on it. It's an interesting case because not only is it crucial to the story, but it's also a device that used by both White Hats and Black Hats. When it's first introduced, it's played largely for comic effect, in spite of the fact that it has a grim side even there (Hermione gets her own potion so wrong), but we can hardly object to it since the Trio are using it for relatively innocent purposes. When we next encounter it, it's used for Evil effect, and we get to see what underpins it in Moody's trunk: the metaphorical rape of another human being. When we see it next, in the production of Seven Harries, it's used between consenting adults, but the doubts by now have been raised (for this reader, anyway). When it's used by the Trio for getting into the Ministry, it's hard to regard it so happily. There's an uncomfortable theme of abolition of will in this book: Hermione's dispatch of her parents is one example, and while the mugging of Mafalda Hopkirk (Stunned), Reginald Cattermole (Puking Pastilles) and Albert Runcorn (Nosebleed Nougat) can be seen as end-justified means, but when we remember that the last time we saw the Twins' products being used as a plot device (the Peruvian Instant Darkness Powder), the division between Nice Magic and Nasty Magic is becoming blurred. If it is true that a hallmark of Black spells is that they involve the metaphoric rape of another person, then both of these spells are strikingly parallel, and their crucial use in the narrative is telling. Are we supposed to draw an analogy between them? If so, that analogy can't be that one is Dark and the other not, or Barty Crouch would not have used Polyjuice. (May I apologise here to any and all who must have drawn an analogy here between the two before ? a search didn't show up such a post, but that must be due to my inept searching.) * No Connection: Black and white magic are both forms of magic, but * are completely different from the base up and are accomplished * differently, even if they achieve similar effects. This stance is * the one most often presented in fiction, including the Harry Potter * series. In such books, the two classes of magic-users are portrayed * as being both ideologically and diametrically opposed. I find the reference to HP here interesting, because it seems, post- DH, that there really isn't any difference between the two types. It's particularly interesting for this reader because it brings up what seems to me to be a recurring problem with the books, to wit, JKR doesn't seem to have decided what magic actually is in this world. In Lewis's world, magic derives from straightforward Powers ? God and Satan, if you like ? in Le Guin's Earthsea, magic is not inherently dualist at all, and the narrative arc of the books (at least the trilogy) derives from Ged's misuse of power; there is evil in the universe, but magic itself is neutral. I'm reminded here of Lee Kaiwen's post at #172309, where zhe argues that the way that magic is portrayed in the WW betrays a confusion about its nature. Apart from the trite fact that some humans are born magical and some aren't, which, again given Earthsea, isn't an explanation, we're never presented with any rationale for magic. In fact, magic is portrayed in contradictory fashion. One of the first things we learn about it is that just knowing the effect one wants to produce isn't enough, or Scabbers would be butter yellow. This is reinforced by Flitwick ("Swish and flick, remember, swish and flick. And saying the magic words properly is very important too -" [PS10]), and look at all the practice that the DA needs, and that Harry needed in GoF. My second thought when Harry did Imperius and Crucio was "How did he learn?" (My first was "What the hell?") Where, in other words, did he learn the wand movement? We were told that these things are important, but then, they no longer are. And at the same time, the series is bookended by two children, Harry and Ariana, whose untrained magic was instinctual and unfocussed, with unpredictable results, the first time as comedy, the second as tragedy. But if learning the correct incantation and the right wand movement aren't important, what is the point of having formal training in the way we're shown (apart, that is, from the author's need to have Hogwarts in the first place)? * Separate but Equal: Black and white magic are not exactly the same * thing, because black is black and white is white. According to this * theory, the same spell could be either white or black; its nature * is determined by the end result of the spell. The majority of * religions follow this belief, as does the remainder of fiction that * does not follow the No Connection theory. [Mus: yes, I know this * seems to contradict the statements about religion earlier. I don't * know why.] This is, actually, after DH, the position that makes the most sense of the WW. But then the author's distinction between Dark Magic and the Other Sort makes no sense. In fact, there's a telling fact about the two types of magic: while the existence of Dark Magic is established early on, the WW doesn't seem to be dualist, in that it doesn't have a name for the other sort of magic. Mus, who before July 21st never expected to be thinking about how badly it all went wrong. From catlady at wicca.net Mon Sep 3 01:15:35 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:15:35 -0000 Subject: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / Witchy Sewing / FingerRemoving Jinx In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176614 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote in : > > But saying that Slytherins are ambitious isn't the same as saying that > Slytherins want to prosper -- people can be just as ambitious for > game, Fame. FAME! arrggghhh... From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Sep 3 01:31:01 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:31:01 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176615 > > Magpie: > > As I said in my post, no *I* don't have trouble coming up with > > reasons it's bad to have Dementors guarding Azkaban, but what I > find > > cruel is not always in line with what the books find cruel. I draw > > the line before the books in general. Since I've been surprised in > > the past at how cruel and callous (imo) characters can be when > > they're putting people in their place, it's only arbitrary to me > that > > Dementors are the place the line is supposed to be drawn. > You might shudder when > you > > think about Dementors--other people shudder when they think about > > Marietta's scarred face only that's just what she deserved because > > she's a traitor. > > Alla: > > I am afraid I still do not understand your argument completely. > Sorry if I was not unclear, but I was mainly wondering why it is > unclear for you that Dementors are horrible as if it is not > described with enough details in the books? I am still not sure I > understand. Are you saying the books do not explain enough why > Dementors are evil? > > I do get that you can come up with the reasons why they are bad, but > those reasons are in the books with the quotes Jen provided, no? > > Are you asking why the books show that the dementors are the > **most** horrible punishmentn ever? More than anything else? Magpie: Basically, yeah! I don't need explanations for why it's horrible to be stuck with Dementors--I get that. But why should I recognize the use of that particular punishment as a sign of "underlying corruption?" I could just as easily believe it as a harsh punishment that was part of the prison experience or something, because I've already got times in the book where I think something is a bad sign and it's just fine. I used the wrong word in saying I thought the loss of them was a "victory" (I wasn't sure what word to use--sorry about that Jen!). I guess I was a bit confused about what Dumbledore's ideals meant in all of this. It seems like sort of an "I told you so" to me-- Dumbledore correctly predicted that the Dementors would side with. It ccontrasts with, for instance, my own predictions of things that might come back and bite the heroes on the butt, but it just seems to kind of show everybody should have listened to Dumbledore whenever he said anything. Alla: > > Well, to add to all what Jen said, to me it is also as simple as > that > they suck out not just your happiness, they suck out your soul. I > think IMO it is clear that books draw it as the fate worse than > death. > > Are you just wondering why it is so? Magpie: Yeah. Sucking out the soul is established, I think, as a fate worse than death (without knowing the details of what the experience is like), but I wouldn't automatically assume that therefore many of the characters in canon--or JKR--would think that was too harsh a punishment for some people. There are many places in the books where I thought I was seeing evidence of an underlying corruption in people that turned out to be no problem at all, so I wouldn't have been surprised at the Dementors being used in the future. As it is I admit I automatically find myself assuming that they don't use them anymore because they've learned not to trust them, not because they saw they were unduly cruel punishment for real criminals. Marietta's scars are not on the level of sucking out the soul, but they still come across as psycho to me, and that was apparently just for fun. So long ago I stopped much trusting the characters' judgments in this area. > > Magpie: > > But knowing it's Dark Magic doesn't make me immediately assume > they > > couldn't just be something JKR liked having for just that reason > so > > that the prison would be properly scary. Is the main reason this > > punishment is off-limits that JKR's experienced depression and > based > > them on that? > > Alla: > > Um, I do not know if this is the main reason in JKR's head. She > mentioned that she came up with the them as metaphors for > depression, no? But regardless of what the justification is in her > head, to me she clearly expressed why Dementors are the most > horrible, offlimit punishment in the book. Losing soul to me does > not come nearly in its horribleness to anything else. Magpie: Yes, I certainly see why in the book it's considered the most horrible punishment. But that doesn't automatically make me think that therefore it must be undeserved by some people according to the author or the characters (even if it's the kind of punishment they would shudder at at the same time). The main reason I know that the Dementors are a sign of bad attitudes at this point is not that it's so horrible to have your soul sucked out so nobody should have it done to them, but that Dumbledore says he's against them. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 01:48:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:48:28 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176616 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > lizzyben wrote: > > > > > So when we hate these people, take revenge against these people, > use violence against these people, we don't have to feel bad about it > - we can actually feel very good & self-righteous about it. Normally, > you would feel bad about hurting someone, but when that person is a > "Dark Wizard", you can feel like it's actually justified as part of a > larger battle between good vs. evil... and you are now on the side of > good. Carol: > Thanks primarily to Snape, Harry's desire for vengeance is gone, > replaced by understanding of and empathy with Snape and the painful > realization that he can't go into battle with Voldemort armed with a > desire for revenge or even with righteous indignation. He must, like a > martyr in early Christian times, walk into the (figurative) arena > unarmed and give himself up as a sacrifice. When he forgives Snape, the last remaining > temptation toward vengeance disappears. > > Granted, there's still a battle, and in any battle, personal grudges > will motivate the participants. Mrs. Weasley's wrath is fueled by > mother love and righteous anger, Percy's and Ron's by grief and anger > over Fred's death. But Harry himself has no such motivation. All he > wants, in the end, is for fewer families to suffer and the WW to be > healed. > > Carol, who sees Harry's character arc not as the triumph *of* > vengeance but as the triumph *over* vengeance lizzyben: Well, Harry himself does not seem driven by vengeance or hatred at the end of DH, but IMO the novel itself is. That's the weirdness - there's a dichotomy between Harry's own arc, and the atmosphere of the novels as a whole. Even with Harry, he still uses Unforgiveable curses against bad guy, and though he doesn't use a killing curse against LV, Voldie is still killed in the end. And that's a happy ending. In my post, I wasn't really talking about Harry's personal arc, but how "Dark Magic" is characterized throughout the series. And trying to understand why the definition is so incomplete, contradictory, confusing, etc. Isn't dark magic an important part of this world? Isn't it a major reason that we can distinguish the bad guys? So why don't we ever get an understanding of what it is, or why it's so very very bad? And I submit that we're looking at this backwards - trying to first figure out what's bad about Dark Magic, then looking at its association w/Slytherin & bad guys. Instead, maybe it's simply bad *because* it is associated w/Slytherin & bad guys. Slytherin House was created first as the house of evil, then bad things got piled on just so we know that these are indeed the bad guys. "Bad" qualities are assigned to the House - cunning, ambition, etc. Bad beliefs are assigned to them too - racism & bigotry are bad, so Slytherins are bigots & racists. Finally, "bad" magic is assigned to them - generally, "Dark Magic" is seen as evil, so Slytherins are associated w/"Dark Magic". It's all a part of making sure this group is over-the-top BAD & hate-able. And distinguishing them from the GOOD, courageous & noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors. And that's the real purpose of the whole "Dark Arts" thing - just to show how bad the bad guys are. Then, when the good guys beat up the bad guys, we can cheer. When the heroes use magic to put the bad guys in their place, we can feel like it's justified as "karmic justice" for their being so bad. When Harry & co. hexes, jinxes, curses Draco & co., we don't have to feel guilty about it, because they're bad, right? With their racism & "Dark Magic" & sketchiness. Not only do you not feel bad, you can actually feel self-righteous about it - because it's not bullying or pranks, it's a blow against EVIL. Now, this starts to get messed up, because in order to punish the Bad People, the Good People have to use some of the same tactics that we hate the Bad People for. But this gets glossed over. So, we see the Marauders using hexes & dark magic against Snape to punish him for being into dark magic; we see Harry using the darkest magic against Draco, almost killing him; we see Harry using Crucio against bad guys,; we see Ginny using hexes against Slytherins (or anyone she doesn't like), and none of this is commented on. It's downright schizophrenic. Half the time, it's the *heroes* that we see using "dark" magic to punish, get revenge, humiliate their enemies, etc., all while the text insists that they are doing this because they are against dark magic. lizzyben From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 02:19:23 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 02:19:23 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (ignoring Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on property) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176617 > > Ceridwen: > Blaming the characters? We do that all the time here. Dumbledore is > a puppet master, Snape is abusive, the Weasleys are the ESE-est > family in the WW, etc. We go back and forth between plot and story, > between characters and author, between what I see and what someone > else sees, all the time. Within the context of the story, I > certainly can blame Lily for judging without all the facts. I can > also see that she doesn't know she doesn't have all the facts. I can > see that maybe Severus shouldn't have trusted Sirius any farther than > he could throw him like a Muggle, but I can also see a boy this age > grabbing the chance and running with it. Harry gets obsessed with > people and foolishly follows them. I blame him for that, but I also > blame his upbringing for making him more secretive than he should > have been. > > Should I not be reading things this way, and instead trying to > psychoanalyze Rowling? I can't do that because I'm not an analyst. > Should this board be strictly for analysts? How are we supposed to > discuss the books, the story part, if we don't blame or praise the > characters? These are the legitimate vehicles Rowling used to get > her story across. She gave these characters personality traits, > lives, deaths in some cases, which is why I call her the Creatrix of > the Potterverse. I don't see how we should not blame, etc., the > characters when we discuss the story. Just because Gryffindors > didn't create Slytherin as "Other" doesn't mean we can't say they're > wrong for assuming that all Slytherins are evil. That would fall > under the context of the story, not the plot. What Gryffindors do > with the world they are given, most certainly can fall on the > Gryffindors' shoulders. > > Ceridwen. > Prep0strus: Yes, you're right... I don't think I made myself clear - and I'm not sure that I can, because a lot is based on little comments that have stacked up on the boards, that I haven't collected. I do think we can blame characters for the actions they take. But what I seem to see is that in being irritated at a world in which Slytherins have been created as the other, the blame seems to fall on Griffindor characters when it is not up to them. Like, I blame Harry for things he does that I don't like - his use of unforgiveables, his stubborness, secrecy, etc. I don't blame Harry for the way he views Slytherins, however, because I think his world is not just such that he has been raised to believe that - but that he is RIGHT in believing it. It comes back to a lot of what people believe and are willing to read in between the lines, but I really don't see that JKR has given us very much wiggle room to see Slytherins as equals to Griffendors. Now, some people post and try to show ways in which they are good. Some people post and rail against JKR for creating a world this way. but sometimes there are posts in which griffindors are looked at with disgust because they look at Slytherins with disgust, and this is what I don't understand. slytherins are disgusting. i would not want to be created a slytherin in jkr's world, but it' snot like they are separate from her creation, always trying to do the right thing but being constrained by the confines of her writing (though, this sounds like it would make an interesting meta-novel). 'Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends.' This is the 'ambition' people speak of. but it's not just ambition. 'use any means to achieve their ends'. that goes way beyond ambitious, and is unable to be interpreted any way bug negatively. 'And power-hungry Slytherin loved those of great ambition. ' This has perhaps the LEAST negative connotation. and it's not exactly glowing, is it? 'Said Slytherin, "We'll teach just those Whose ancestry's purest." ' 'For instance, Slytherin Took only pure-blood wizards Of great cunning just like him.' Not great, of course, also, not especially true. Meanwhile Griffindors are 'brave', 'bold', and 'chivalrous', (defintition: the sum of the ideal qualifications of a knight, including courtesy, generosity, valor, and dexterity in arms.), with much more positive connotations. And again and again we're shown Slytherins who are evil or nasty or both. and we have to find our good slytherins in Slytherins who aren't quite as bad. who were bad, but are now good. or who are bad, but are more into family than being bad. or who are not bad, just meanspirited and weak. or who aren't slytherins, but are french, and so we pretend their qualties must also be slytherin qualities. I think harry, and other griffindors, are given ample reason to look down on Slytherins all they want to. To mistrust and despise them and not think they have anything worthwhile to give the world. Because JKR, even though she tells us the houses need to come together (they don't) and keeps trying to tell us 'they're not all bad', and holding up snape as the bravest, most griffindor-like example, in reality, doesn't give us the opportunity. she doesn't give us something equal to brave and chivarous, or intelligent, or hardworking. only purebloods who do anything to get their own personal desires. I've strayed from the topic at hand. I think it is fine to criticize characters, but sometimes, i think the characters get criticized for living in JKR's world. Slytherins are the feeble straw men to Griffindor's mighty heroes - to us, the reader. In the world of the book slytherins aren't sad little whippingboys who get blamed for everything. They are, more often than not (from what is shown in canon) rich, powerful, evil, nasty, cruel - killing, terrorizing the world. They're equivalent to racists and genocidists, and to feel sorry for them is to feel sorry that JKR has created a group of people so morally bankrupt that they have almost no hope for salvation. but it doesn't change what they are in the world itself. To criticize harry for not giving slytherin a chance is (no matter how trite the example) to criticize a more enlightened person for not giving a nazi a chance. maybe he's a nice nazi, but i wouldn't bet on it. jkr didn't give them a chance long before harry didn't. not sure if i'm making the point, but hey... maybe someone out there gets what I'm saying. :) ~Adam (Prep0strus), who is frustrated that JKR ran out of adjectives so quickly for houses. the good, the bad, the smart, and the rest. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 03:19:16 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:19:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic / Light Canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176618 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176584 > > zgirnius: > There are degrees of everything, this is rather my point. Severus > inventing a spell to grow someone's toenails, Sirius using the > Impediment Jinx/Curse on an unarmed opponent, and Voldemort > murdering Lily, are all instances of different degrees of Dark > Magic use. The first two, I can see people finding funny. > (Actually, I have a bit of trouble seeing the humor personally, but > after two years in fandom, I am able to verify empirically that > each of the first two instances is considered funny by someone ). Mike: As I said, I've stopped reading JKR's interview/website as canon. But if what you said here is what she said, then I'm cool with it. Because your explanation (including the follow-on that I haven't quoted) makes more sense than any other I've seen. I want your analytical mind!! So every spell that falls under the category of attacking another being has some degree of "Dark Magic". The problem for us is that the characters refer to Dark Magic as that with the most sinister intent. Which leaves us guessing where they draw that line. I'm siding with Alla's interpretation, "I know it when I see it." For me, that means that the Marauders are not being hypocritical, because in their world "Dark Magic" is defined as something different than the minor dark magic that you have defined above. Also, a "Dark Arts Practitioner" is defined as one who uses "Dark Magic", the Capital Letter variety. As I said, we may not know where they drew the line, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. And us not knowing what has been clearly defined to them does not make them hypocrites, imo. > zgirnius: > I suppose we can't really tell about the Marauders' Map, but since its makers were an eventual Death Eater and three at least occasional users of the Dark Arts, I don't see knowing this point as crucial to the underpinnings of either the moral or magical underpinnings of the Potetrverse. Mike: I feel pretty confident in saying that the Marauder's Map is a *Charmed* piece of parchment. And, as I said above, I don't agree that the Marauders were using "Dark Arts" as they were defined in their world. As Steve pointed out, both Murder and jaywalking are illegal. But most people wouldn't say a jaywalker had committed a *crime*. In fact, most people caught speeding don't consider themselves as committing a crime. > zgirnius: > To equate the petty cruelty of the Marauders with some atrocity of the Death Eaters is just silly, IMO. Mike: YES, thank you! >> Alla: >> Or maybe Mike is right and JKR did not really mean to call hexes >> and jinxes having a touch of Dark magic? > zgirnius: > With all due respect to Mike, counterjinxes and countercurses are both taught in DADA, and students practice defending against jinxes, hexes, and curses in that class. Since that is the class for learning to defend oneself from the Dark Arts, I conclude that the things they practise defending themselves from, *are* Dark Arts. Mike: First, let's not start giving Mike due respect. But what I was trying to say was that JKR's *canon* defined "Dark" as something different than hexes and jinxes. And though I agree with your interpretation as far as DADA and the degrees of dark, that differs from what I read as the characters defining as "Dark". I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I don't know how to say it better. > > Mike: > > And not accepting JKR's portrayal of Slytherins as the Bad Guys > > is a denial of the way she wrote the story, imo again. If that is > > unsatisfying personally, than that's for you (general) to come to > > terms with personally. > zgirnius: > It is neither the house from which all bad guys came, nor a house consisting entirely of bad guys. I'm afraid I don't even know what you are saying, here. What you say later, about it being the house of Riddle and most of his followers, seems too obvious to debate. Perhaps that is all you mean here? Mike: The context here was a response as to *if* we should hate the Slytherins because of their use of Dark Magic. It is my opinion that JKR wrote Slytherin as the prototypical den of the bad guys. And *that* is why we are *supposed* to hate them. BTW, I share your position on the house. But that is my opinion and not necessarily how JKR wrote the house. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176605 Ceridwen: Lily didn't know all the facts. She didn't know what was at the end of the tunnel: "They don't use Dark Magic, though." She dropped her voice. "And you're being really ungrateful. I heard what happened the other night. You went sneaking down that tunnel by the Whomping Willow, and James Potter saved you from whatever's down there --" (US DH 674) The phrase "whatever's down there" means she doesn't know what's down there. One fact lacking. Mike: I can't speak for Alla, but as she has interpreted for me a few times, I think I'll return the favor. LOLOL. I think her point was that Lily didn't make the connection between Sev's theory on Lupin and "whatever's down there" being that same werewolf. And it doesn't matter, Sev isn't accusing the Marauders of practicing "Dark Magic". He's just accusing them of getting up to some shenanigans. Once Lily called James a toerag, Sev didn't care anymore about any Dark Magic accusations. IMO, that was because he wasn't trying to convince Lily that Potter and Co. were practicing Dark Arts, he just wanted her to not like him, plain and simple. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176607 > Julie: > This is a continuing issue in the HP books from the reader's POV. > Every time you try to nail down a definition--like saying Dark > Magic is that which leaves lasting physical effects-- > something will come up that doesn't fit the definition. > > For instance, by your definition above Hermione practiced Dark > Magic when she jinxed/hexed the DA parchement. Mike: Just to clarify, I was saying that non Dark Magic meant that it *didn't* leave lasting physical effects. That is different from saying Dark Magic *must* leave lasting physical effects. Or that anything that leaves lasting physical effects *must* be Dark. As zgirnius has said, there is some dark magic in all these kinds of hexes/jinxes. So I would agree that Hermione used *some* dark magic when she jinxed the DA parchment. Just not Dark Magic. > Julie: > But is a memory charm ever considered "Dark" magic? A wizard can > use virtually *any* spell for sinister purposes, to injure or even > kill another wizard, but we never hear that you can use basic > spells in a way that makes them "Dark" instead of "Light" > (or simply not-Dark). It's all just very inconclusive! Mike: Yep, you're right. I guess I was calling it Dark Magic when I should have said it was magic being used for Dark intents or being abused by a Dark Wizard. Good call, Julie. > Julie: > (And one could say JKR wrote it that way so each of her readers > could create their own mindsets about what constitutes "Dark" magic > and other ambiguously defined concepts within the HP universe, much > as she left the character Snape deliberately ambiguous until DH. Mike: I think it was deliberate because I think she didn't want to either define "Dark" nor box herself in as to what she would consider "Dark" for her characters. But, as you say, that's not good writing. That just showed a lack of ability to explain her world's technical aspects. She wasn't interested in making the story about magic, she just wanted to use wizards to tell a story. > Julie: > It was unclear until DH was published whether there *was* a > deeper and more complicated moralistic story going on beneath the > surface. Many, many readers assumed there was such an underlying > story, which would be revealed in DH, and would in turn reveal JKR > as the extremely talented author (in terms of nuance and > complexity of writing) that many of us hoped or assumed she was. > Alas, it did not come to pass. She is a talented author in terms of > inventiveness and storytelling, just not quite the er, wizard at > tying up details into the truly cohesive universe that some of us > expected. Mike: I agree with both of your assessments on the story and the author. I guess what confused me about the disappointment in moralistic terms was that JKR said many times that she was not trying to write a moral tale, a la C S Lewis. She even went so far as to say she was offended in the way Lewis treated his Susan Pevensy character. (an assessment I agree with) So when it turned out that JKR *didn't* write a tale with that overarching moralistic thread, I thought that she had just kept her word. Its a shame that her ability to flesh out 3D characters did not coincide with an ability to give them a more meaningful story arc. Yet, the 3D characters are what made discussing the books so enjoyable. > Julie: > I believe it is a very valid criticism to say the books would have > been better in quality if many of the ambiguous concepts like Dark > Magic had been defined in a meaningful and coherent way, and if the > hanging plot threads that ended up abandoned (like House Elf > rights) had been given some actual resolution (or had never been > started in the first place). Mike: Well said! > Julie: > The only thing left, as you say and I do agree, is to enjoy the > stories on their *actual* terms, as inventive and entertaining, but > not as clever moral allegories, or tightly woven stories in terms > of cohesive plotting. Which I am willing to do, though I still > feel free to insert my .02 cents into discussion like this one! Mike: I like pointing out plot holes and failed story arcs as much as the next guy. I suppose where we differ, to some degre, is that I felt invested in Harry more than any other character. Not that he was my favorite character, just that I was more interested in what happened to him and all the other story lines were interesting but unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Ultimately, I only required a satisfying conclusion to Harry's story from JKR, and for the most part I got that. Mike, pointing out to Julie that she should drop the decimal point from .02 cents, as 2/100ths of a cent is not much input. LOL From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 03:22:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:22:27 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176619 lizzyben wrote: > Well, Harry himself does not seem driven by vengeance or hatred at the end of DH, but IMO the novel itself is. That's the weirdness - there's a dichotomy between Harry's own arc, and the atmosphere of the novels as a whole. Even with Harry, he still uses Unforgiveable curses against bad guy, and though he doesn't use a killing curse against LV, Voldie is still killed in the end. And that's a happy ending. Carol responds: Good; I'm glad we agree about Harry. As for Voldie, I don't really see what other ending is possible. He's personally responsible for at least a dozen murders that I can think of offhand without even bringing in Cedric Diggory (technically killed by Wormtail) or other murders committed by DEs on his orders, not to mention innumerable Crucios, six deliberately created Horcruxes, the Dark resurrection magic he had Wormtail perform (including cutting off his own hand to use in the restorative potion). Somehow Azkaban, even with Dementors, wouldn't suffice. We, the readers, and the WW, have to know that this time Voldie won't come back. So, yes, it's a happy ending, just as it's a happy ending when the wicked witch falls into the sea in "Snow White" or Sauron goes down with the Dark Tower in LOTR. It's a symbolic end to the specific form that evil takes in a particular work. And I think it's significant that Harry doesn't kill Voldie. The Killing Curse Voldie casts on him is deflected onto himself just as it was at GH. "You don't learn from your mistakes, do you, Riddle?" as Harry says. So, no, I don't see vengeance as a major theme. I see love as stronger than vengeance as the major lesson that Harry learns. And as he's both the protagonist and the pov character, the narrator's perspective reflects that lesson. (As for that d**ned Crucio, it's cast *before* Harry's excursion into Snape's memories, so he still hasn't learned the lesson at that point.) > Lizzyben: > In my post, I wasn't really talking about Harry's personal arc, but how "Dark Magic" is characterized throughout the series. And trying to understand why the definition is so incomplete, contradictory, confusing, etc. Isn't dark magic an important part of this world? Isn't it a major reason that we can distinguish the bad guys? So why don't we ever get an understanding of what it is, or why it's so very very bad? Carol: Well, I don't agree with you about the revenge theme, but I'm just as confused as you are regarding Dark magic in the series and, like you, still trying to explore the concept. I think we can agree that the Dementors are Dark creatures and that the use of them to terrorize innocent Muggle-borns is evil. And I think we can agree that the resurrection magic, with its violation of a parents' grave and its use of forcibly taken blood of an enemy along with the "w-willingly given" (not!) flesh of a servant and its violation of the natural order is about as Dark as we can get (that and the Horcruxes and Inferi). Those spells and potions, I think it's fair to state, would not be performed or created by any "good" character in the series, whether that character is DD or Harry or Snape. Where we're running into trouble (or confusion) is the hexes and jinxes and so forth, because if they're Dark, then the Marauders are hypocrites as well as bullies. I'm perfectly comfortable in believing that they're both. (I noted how quickly and violently Lupin jumped on the anti-Snape bandwagon. Too bad he never learned *why* Snape cast Sectumsempra in in DH.) At any rate, as I keep saying, most of Teen!Snape's hexes are no darker than those that Harry and Draco routinely use against each other in the corridors. And I certainly don't agree that Gryffindor = good. There's nothing admirable about MWPP in SWM; young Severus is a much more sympathetic character even when he's torn between Lily and the young DE wannabes, Avery and Mulciber. (And JKR cared enough about him to give him a detailed backstory and a redemption scene, complete with spectacular magic from a dying but determined man.) As for other "ungood" Gryffindors, Wormtail is the most cowardly character in the series, not to mention one of the most contemptible, selling his friends to Voldemort in exchange for his flea-bitten skin. Romilda Vane and Cormac McLaggen won't win any prizes for courage or loyalty or any other virtue, either 9though granted we don't see them in DH). > Lizzyben: > And I submit that we're looking at this backwards - trying to first figure out what's bad about Dark Magic, then looking at its association w/Slytherin & bad guys. Instead, maybe it's simply bad *because* it is associated w/Slytherin & bad guys. Slytherin House was created first as the house of evil, then bad things got piled on just so we know that these are indeed the bad guys. Carol: Maybe, but I don't think so. Slytherin House wasn't created by Hogwarts (as opposed to JKR, whose intentions I don't want to guess) as the house of evil. It was created as the house Salazar Slytherin created for "pure-blood wizards of great cunning, just like him" at a time when Muggles were burning witches and he had at least some justification for looking at Muggle-borns with suspicion. (Placing a Basilisk in the CoS was, of course, going too far.) But there's no indication that early Slytherins were particularly evil or motivated by what posters insist on calling "racism," a concept that didn't even exist until the twentieth century. The one Slytherin we see from that early era, the Bloody Baron, was motivated to commit a murder/suicide by unrequited love and spent the next thousand years or so as a ghost wearing chains to symbolize his repentance. (BTW, the BB is surely a foil to SS, who wanted the woman he loved to live and chose *not* to commit suicide but to show his remorse for his role in her death in a much more constructive way.) At any rate, while Slytherin was certainly the house for cunning and ambition, the sorting Hat did not hold strictly to the pure-blood requirement, which we know was violated at least twice (Tom Riddle and Severus Snape). On a sidenote, I wonder what would have happened to those two boys had the pure-blood requirement kept them out? (Never mind; there would have been no story.) It seems to me that the corruption of Slytherin House into a breeding ground for Dark Wizards, or at least, potential DEs, begins with the admission of Tom Riddle, who corrupted some of his (male) housemates and their children (mostly sons) into becoming first- and second-generation Death Eaters. But only one student of Harry's generation, Draco, actually becomes a DE AFAWK, and he regrets that choice. (Two others, Crabbe and Goyle, are corrupted. Perhaps Goyle is redeemable by his stupidity and loyalty to Draco; Crabbe, of course, is burned by his own Fiendfyre.) Lizzyben: "Dark Magic" is seen as evil, so Slytherins are associated w/"Dark Magic". It's all a part of making sure this group is over-the-top BAD & hate-able. And distinguishing them from the GOOD, courageous & noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors. Carol: Or rather, Harry associates Draco with Dark magic for no discernable reason other than Draco's attempt to Crucio him, followed by Harry's own foolish use of an unknown spell marked "for enemies," which turns out to be (surprise!) Dark magic--fortunately, Snape is on hand to cure it. And Severus himself is labeled by Sirius as "up to his eyes in Dark magic" with no support in the text at all except a yard-long *DADA* OWL and Sectumsempra. And if he really came to school at eleven "knowing more curses than half the seventh years," these are still acceptable "curses" that the average seventh year would know, quite probably standard DADA spells and imaginative schoolboy hexes of the Densuageo variety. (BTW, a Slytherin makes a Gryffindors eyebrows grow down to her feet, but it's a Gryffindor who gives Pansy Parkinson antlers. For a school that doesn't teach Dark magic, Hogwarts has some, erm, interesting stuff going on in its corridors. And which is darker, Serpensortia (easily "sorted out" with Snape's Evanesco) or Harry's hex that gives Goyle boils (intended for Draco)? Isn't the Potter calling the kettle "black" here? Which "good, courageous, noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors" are you referring to? The Gryffindors I know may be courageous, but they're rule breakers, often rude or tactless, sometimes arrogant, and intolerant of any House except their own most of the time. (Hermione has her causes, notably SPEW, but she's mistaken about their views, trying to impose her idea of what's right on them, and she doesn't mind engaging in occasional blackmail. Neither do the Twins.) So, except for Harry's sacrifice at the end of DH, his "saving people" thing, which is more likely to cause problems than to solve them, and the friendship of the Trio, which survives despite some rather severe testing, I'd be hard-pressed to call the Gryffindors noble. They're just openly and sometimes recklessly brave (Ron loyally overcoming his fear of spiders on occasion and saving Harry as Snape planned in DH), but they certainly have their faults. And what's interesting *to me* is that the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape and Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for Slughorn. Until HBP, we didn't really see the various Slytherins as people, but in the last two books we do. And so, I think, does Harry. Which brings me back to Slytherin and the Dark Arts. Despite an occasional reference to Dark Arts in association with Slytherin, we don't really *see* that association except in connection with Healer!Snape, who applies his knowledge of the Dark Arts to saving the lives of people who have been attacked by Dark magic (or trying to do so). In contrast, we see the Gryffindor Peter Pettigrew performing Dark magic to restore the Slytherin Riddle/Voldemort to his bodily form, which has been distorted through the Dark magic of the Horcruxes. Where else do we see Dark magic, not counting Dementors and Inferi? The first place we see anything associated with it is Borgin and Burkes, a shop that sells Dark artifacts first mentioned in CoS, and in more general terms, in Knockturn Alley itself. So maybe that's where we should look. What distinguishes Knockturn Alley from Diagon Alley and reputable magical merchants from disreputable ones? Cursed objects, Hands of Glory, and poisons, to begin with--as opposed to wands, brooms, robes, and books in Diagon Alley. Admittedly, some of the items sold in Diagon Alley, especially potion ingredients such as beetle eyes, seem rather sinister. That is, until we look at what went into the potion that resurrected Voldemort (and the one that created Fetal!mort--snake venom and unicorn blood). Yes, we see Lucius Malfoy in Borgin and Burkes getting rid of suspicious artifacts, but he's a Death Eater, so it's no surprise that he and his wife are "bad, Dark wizards" as well in Dobby's words. Are we getting any closer? Or is "Dark" still just a label placed on Slytherins as "Other"? Carol, pretty sure that Borgin and Burkes will provide a clue as to what's Dark and what's not From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon Sep 3 03:42:45 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:42:45 -0000 Subject: FILK: Voldy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176620 Voldy (DH, Chap. 12-13) To the tune of Glory from Stephen Schwartz's Pippin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge4KU_U_m0k THE SCENE: The Ministry of Magic, Level One. Quintessential team player DOLORES UMBRIDGE finds her comfort level with the new regime. UMBRIDGE: Potter ? your end will be bloody Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Praise to the darkest of Lords His fiats aren't ignored. We're now all fully on board Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Blood! Blood! Blood impure is curs?d Blood with mud has to go With mud has to go And through the streets we'll make it flow Steal! (Enter CHORUS OF MINISTRY OFFICIALS) CHORUS Steal! UMBRIDGE & CHORUS: Steal is what Mudbloods do Steal to gain magic might Gain magic might A situation we'll set right Read it all in his latest memo See it all in his newest demo Voldemort, you make all traitors tremor! UMBRIDGE: Peace! Peace is nearly at hand Peace we'll have in our time Once we crush Potter and his slime UMBRIDGE & CHORUS: Read it all in his latest memo See it all in his newest demo Voldemort, you make all traitors tremor! (During the instrumental bridge, UMBRIDGE & CHORUS are accompanied by a few stray dementors and the Cat Patronus in a Two-Minute Hate against Undesirable Number One, whose portrait is magically depicted behind the singers) We will help conquer that brat You all can be sure of that For we're the Ministry's top bureaucrats! (The portrait of Undesirable Number One is replaced by a portrait of ? hmmm- Desirable Number One? ? to which the Ministers pay homage) Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! Voldy! - CMC - "I like bats better than bureaucrats." ? CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters (intro) HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 03:49:40 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 03:49:40 -0000 Subject: Snape's role/ Blaming characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176621 Julie: > Finally, if Snape's did make Harry's survival possible, and everything that > went > with it, including the eventual defeat of Voldemort (and it's a very good > possibility > that he did), so what? People's actions have unintended consequences, which > by definition are unrelated to intent or to their "goodness" or "badness." If Snape did "save" >Harry and the > WW, he was joined in this act by Voldemort, who also set this course by > acting on > that silly prophecy. And I see no reason why Harry would or should thank > Snape-- > nor why Snape would expect or want thanks--as it was just one more in a long > line > > of unanticipated consequences that make up much of the story of human (and > WW) > existence! Alla: So what if Snape saved Harry? That is my thing, I do not buy that premise, that is all. I strongly **disagree** with it. Of course the story is full of not anticipated consequences and I think that Snape saving WW is one of them and Voldemort obtaining body partially because Harry saved Wormtail is another. But I do not buy that Snape **saved** Harry when he went to Voldie, that is all. I think he made him suffer for sixteen years - that is what in mind Snape did to Harry. I mean of course he had some happiness when he entered WW too - school, friends, but no I am not buying that Snape saved Harry by **telling the prophecy**. He was saving him later, yes, but maybe without making him Chosen one, all that saving was not needed. So, yeah, do not think that Harry has to thank Snape AND do not think that Snape **deserves** thanks for telling prophecy, at all. > Ceridwen: > Blaming the characters? We do that all the time here. Dumbledore is > a puppet master, Snape is abusive, the Weasleys are the ESE-est > family in the WW, etc. How are we supposed to > discuss the books, the story part, if we don't blame or praise the > characters? These are the legitimate vehicles Rowling used to get > her story across. She gave these characters personality traits, > lives, deaths in some cases, which is why I call her the Creatrix of > the Potterverse. I don't see how we should not blame, etc., the > characters when we discuss the story. Alla: Yeah, while on story related substance I am totally with Adam, I agree with you here completely :) ( But Sirius was right and that makes all the difference goes to my favorite lines I read here ever, thanks Adam :)) Adam, do check out some of my pre DH posts if you so wish sometimes and see how much I blamed Snape for erm.... lots of things ;) I refuse to be told that I should not, you know? Because even post DH I have plenty of things to blame him for and while I will defend my favorites from blame if I do not feel they deserve ( and our favorites are pretty much the same), I think it is a very legitimate thing to do so :) It is just fun thing for me to think of characters as real sometimes from within the story and wanting to blame them if I so desire and I imagine for other people to. Mike: For me, that means that the Marauders are not being hypocritical, because in their world "Dark Magic" is defined as something different than the minor dark magic that you have defined above. Also, a "Dark Arts Practitioner" is defined as one who uses "Dark Magic", the Capital Letter variety. As I said, we may not know where they drew the line, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. And us not knowing what has been clearly defined to them does not make them hypocrites, imo. Alla: Me too again. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 04:43:11 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:43:11 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176622 Mus: > This is, actually, after DH, the position that makes the most sense > of the WW. But then the author's distinction between Dark Magic and > the Other Sort makes no sense. In fact, there's a telling fact about > the two types of magic: while the existence of Dark Magic is > established early on, the WW doesn't seem to be dualist, in that it > doesn't have a name for the other sort of magic. zgirnius: The position I am arguing, I guess, is that magic in the Potterverse is morally neutral, as in Earthsea. I disagree that there is no name for the other sorts of magic, other than the Dark Arts: there's Charms, and Transfiguration, and Potions, and Arithmancy.... > Prep0strus: > Except that he's right. That's what makes all the difference. We > can argue how well JKR set all of this up, but the point is, Sirius is > RIGHT. Severus's interest and knowledge DID lead him to make > different choices. zgirnius: Even a clock that is broken shows the right time twice a day. I do not believe I am supposed to believe that young Severus the eleven- year-old on the train, was already irrevocably committed to a career of terror and evil as a Death Eater. Sirius Black indicates he formed this opinion when Sev was 11. I don't believe him, and even if I did, he would have been wrong from what he knew. prep0strus: > Your assertion that Sirius and Severus didn't know > or do things that are materially different is your opinion. zgirnius: In a sense, yes. But only in the sense that in my opinion, when reading and interpreting a novel (or series of seven novels), I only need to consider what I actually read in it. I was not shown Sirius and Snape doing or knowing magical things that were materially different as Hogwarts students. Severus was better at Dark Arts, and also at DADA, that I will grant, on the evidence of his Potions book. (Also at Potions, though this is not relevant, and not in Transfiguration, at which Sirius was better.) > prep0strus: > But the thing that isn't > debatable is that Sirius didn't become a Death Eater, and Severus did. zgirnius: You will note, please, that I was not debating that. 21 year old Severus Snape was a Dark Wizard. 21 year old Sirius Black was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. This does not retroactively excuse Sirius's behavior as a fifth year, or, if he made it, his prejudiced judgment of Severus as a first year. > prep0strus: > A lot of times there can be debate over means and ends and intents > and causes, but sometimes you look at the big picture and see that > however much one might want to see into the soul of the dark > characters and see light and look into the good characters and see > their evil, there comes a point where it's immaterial. Mulciber's a > villain. Peter's a traitor. Lily dies protecting her son and Neville > is a good guy. It's easy to pick apart the way JKR tells us things ? > she's made it too easy, in fact. zgirnius: I am not picking anything apart. I am in fact, attempting to defend the position that there is a coherent moral vision in her story. I can't reconcile the idea that Sirius acted properly in either SWM or the Willow incident with that. I also don't feel I need to, because I think it obvious he did not, and obvious that Rowling meant us to see that. Since it matters to you, in the first case, at least, Lily herself indicated that in terms I found unambiguous. I agree Rowling means us to think of those she describes as "Dark Wizards" as the bad guys of her universe. I just don't think it is important to her that we think they are bad *because* they use a certain spell or another. In my opinion, the text makes amply clear why they are bad guys without this rather formal distinction she makes little effort to uphold. If this really mattered to her, I cannot believe she would have allowed DD to endorse Snape's killing of him, Harry to use Crucio, or Minerva to use Imperius. > prep0strus: > But JKR meant something when she invented dark magic. She > failed miserably in defining it accurately, but I for one will still > accept that somehow, in some way I don't understand, there is a > difference that is more than mere political spin. zgirnius: I think she meant it as a stand-in for, basically, violence/the use of force, in real life. It is the jinxes, hexes, and curses that we constantly see witches and wizards of every stripe use in combat. Good wizards who use Dark Arts are like good Muggles who use violence reluctantly, tend to choose limited force when this is feasible, and use it only under special circumstances. Dark wizards are like evil Muggles who use violence for its own sake, direct it wantonly against innocents, use it to further evil causes, and follow a philosophy of 'might makes right'. > Prep0strus: > Well, among other things a sorting hat song that didn't make them > out to be so bad. That gave them something resembling a worthwhile > trait, something one might actually want to have as a part of > themselves. zgirnius: What is your objection to: "Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends." The original song that introduced people to the House? Were I a young and naive Muggleborn of eleven years, I would be pleased enough to be Sorted into this House, based on that description. I do pride myself on the possession of a set of brains that can come up with unexpected solutions to problems and outwit my opponents in sneaky ways at times. (Though the Hat would take no time at all to send me into Ravenclaw, my obvious home). > lizzyben: > Agree here as well. The one area I differ is that I believe we *are* > supposed to see Dark Magic as more sinister or bad - kid's stuff or > not. zgirnius: I agree, really. The comparison I made in response to another poster above is to liken the Dark Arts to violence/physical force in Real Life. Other means of resolving conflicts are to be preferred. Kids should not use it on one another. It's a bad thing. In some cases, though, it is justifiable. > lizzyben: > In addition, Sirius says that he comes from a long line of > Dark Wizards, & there's no indication that his ancestors were > involved in committing atrocities. zgirnius: There's Araminta Melliflua, who wanted to legalize Muggle hunting. If it was because she preferred not to risk arrest for her favortie pastime, she'd count. There's Aunt Elladora, who beheaded House Elves when they got too old to carry tea trays. In the more recent family history, Sirius has a brother, a cousin, and a cousin's husband who are or were all Death Eaters. > lizzyben: > So while I'd agree that > the "real" Dark Wizards are the Death Eaters, the text itself isn't > so clear. Basically, Death Eaters are the ones involved in the stuff > you've mentioned, so that's a good term for the designated bad guys > here. But the text says that all "dark wizards" or "dark arts" are > evil, and that seems to muddle the message a little. zgirnius: I suppose. I just feel that the DH revelation that *all* three of the unforgivables were used by the guys in white hats, unmuddled it just fine. The good guys don't *like* them, usually, and use them a lot less, and we saw that as well. > lizzyben: > Well, here in general Gryffindors seem to hate Slytherins because > they use "Dark Magic". zgirnius: And all those Slytherins have strong associations with Voldemort/Death Eaters. By the time Harry thinks where we can see it that he hates Draco for this reason, Draco is a Death Eater who plotted to kill Dumbledore. Severus had some association with a group of Slytherins that included Bella Black; naturally Sirius will assume the worst. Though, I think the people that point out that James and Sirius fail to mention this dreadful propensity of Severus's in both SWM and "The Prince's Tale" have a point - this may have become a talking point as a result of later developments among Severus's friends from school. > lizzyben: > I do believe that we're > supposed to see Slyths, Sirius' family, Durmstrang, etc. as more > sinister & evil soley because of the connection to "Dark Magic." zgirnius: Yet Durmstrang's star student befriends a Muggle-born, and *hates* Grindelwald and his admirers with a passion, as do many of his fellow students. > lizzyben: > I > don't think we're supposed to believe that Gryffindors or the Order > are using Dark Magic, even though they are. zgirnius: As you say, they are. And not just the little jinxes James, the Twins, and their admirers may find funny. The Unforgivable Curses! I don't see why anyone would think this happened by accident. > lizzyben: > Sirius is telling Harry that it's right to hate people because they > use "Dark Magic", though their own side uses the same magic. He > implies that it was right for Sirius & James to use hexes to bully > Snape as a principled stand against the Dark Arts, when it really > wasn't that at all. zgirnius: Sirius is wrong. I am confident Rowling would agree, especially on the second point, since that is not even what they were doing, and since Harry objects right there in OotP on those grounds. On the first, it is indiscriminate use for evil ends that is objectionable. Though really, I would say the message is not that it is right to hate anyone, even Voldemort. I think it was Carol that pointed this out - near the start of DH, Lupin, the last surviving Marauder, spends a page berating Harry for his use of the Disarming Charm during the Seven Potters raid. Harry gives (or thinks) some good reasons for his choice. Harry later in the book uses Crucio and Imperio, but finally wins with, yes, Expelliarmus. I think James and Sirius (were they alive) would have agreed with Lupin, and not Harry, in that conversation. But Harry did the right thing. In the end, he proves himself 'a better man' than all of his assorted father figures (Dumbledore, our 'epitome of good' and Rowling's voice in earlier novels, makes it official). That I see things this way makes it really easy to dismiss Sirius's ideas about morality any time they don't seem to match Harry's. I do not believe he speaks for the author. He expresses a view, that Harry hears and heeds for a time, but ultimately rejects. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 06:13:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 06:13:23 -0000 Subject: Florian Fortescue: (was: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176623 --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: ... > > Jen wrote in > : > > << there wasn't even any *ice cream* anymore for > crying out loud! >> > Catlady: > > It's tragic that Florian Fortescue was captured by the > enemy (and presumably tortured before being killed), > but saying there was no ice cream anymore is a bit of > an exageration. There would still be home-made ice > cream from householdy witches like Molly and Andromeda, > or householdy wizards I suppose, and House Elves could > make even gourmet ice cream like Florian's. > bboyminn: Sorry...Florian Fortescue captured and killed? I was under the impression that Mr. Fortescue's fate was unknown, with the only hint being that he might have closed up shop and fled for the duration of the war. And that is exactly what I prefer to believe, that he simply fled for whatever reason; perhaps he had muggle-born relatives. Or perhaps, he realized what the wizard world would be like if Voldemort won, and figured he could sell ice cream anywhere in the world. Personally, I suspect he visited relatives in Italy and spend the duration making fine Italian gelato and Italian ice. Extending this, I prefer to think he came back after Voldemort's defeat and opened up shop again. So... ICE CREAM FOR EVERYONE! WOO-HOO! Steve/bboyminn From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 3 08:25:39 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 04:25:39 EDT Subject: Dark Magic (ignoring Dumbledore's age/ Goblin's view on propert Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176624 Adam wrote: Its place is in a different post, but I have to agree with JKR when she is dumfounded by people who identify with Slytherin. I can easily understand identifying with NONE of the houses, but? there was a post that I still have not gotten to respond to in which it was asked what could have redeemed, or made equal, Slytherin in our eyes. Well, among other things? a sorting hat song that didn't make them out to be so bad. That gave them something resembling a worthwhile trait, something one might actually want to have as a part of themselves. It must have been done many times before this book, but I think looking at what the hat actually says is a reality check for what Slytherin truly is. And sure, the hat could be lying (it WAS griffindor's!), but when everything good about something has to be made up by the reader, it's just trying too hard. What I would've liked is a song that showed how maybe slytherin house wasn't the breeding ground for the scum of the earth. Julie: My guess is that people who "identify" with Slytherin House are identifying with certain qualities bestowed upon Slytherins by the time Harry comes to Hogwarts (even if these qualities were "earned" by the House's predecessors). More specifically that Slytherins are rejected by the other Houses and are the outsiders of the school. Many people who have felt the sting of rejection, and who have been on the outside looking in, especially when they were in school (at an age where rejection and labels like "loser" or "outsider" sting deeply) still have that rejection seared on their souls, and can't help but sympathize with the Slytherins. *Within the Hogwarts school* Slytherins ARE the underdogs, the rejects, the losers who can only hang with each other. Again this status may be deserved based on the actions of their predecessors, and eventually their own actions as they are integrated as eleven-year-old inductees into the Slytherin culture and mindset. I personally don't identify with Slytherin so much as I deeply sympathize with Slytherins. Mostly because I'll never accept it as in any manner reflective of a decent society to dump eleven year old children into this House steeped in the prejudices of its predecessors, this House that shouldn't even exist, and abandon them with not a single effort by any adult to offer them other options or to convince them that there is a better mindset, with either words *or* with actions. Adam also wrote: Slytherins are the feeble straw men to Griffindor's mighty heroes - to us, the reader. In the world of the book slytherins aren't sad little whippingboys who get blamed for everything. They are, more often than not (from what is shown in canon) rich, powerful, evil, nasty, cruel - killing, terrorizing the world. They're equivalent to racists and genocidists, and to feel sorry for them is to feel sorry that JKR has created a group of people so morally bankrupt that they have almost no hope for salvation. but it doesn't change what they are in the world itself. To criticize harry for not giving slytherin a chance is (no matter how trite the example) to criticize a more enlightened person for not giving a nazi a chance. maybe he's a nice nazi, but i wouldn't bet on it. jkr didn't give them a chance long before harry didn't. Julie: But the ones we have been discussing *at Hogwarts* are CHILDREN. Yes they have racist attitudes, but no they do NOT kill and terrorize the WW. At least NOT YET. This concept of eleven year old children who are already so morally bankrupt they have "almost no hope for salvation" is absolutely horrifying to me. And in your example of not giving a Nazi a chance, this really translates to condemning the children of Nazis, who were after all indoctrinated at home to share their parents' views. I don't recall this happening, as I believe they were given the encouragement to adopt new and more enlightened views, and presumably most of them did so and became productive members of society. And there is the difference. JKR's message seems to be that Slytherin children are beyond this type of assistance, as no one puts in even the smallest effort into turning them away from their destructive path. I must say this is a message I absolutely detest, even if it references a fictional world. Julie, who places plenty of blame on the adult teachers and the headmaster of Hogwarts for the condition and mindset of Slytherin House, because they *are* the adults and they allow the situation persist. They are the "good men who do nothing." ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From salilouisa at googlemail.com Mon Sep 3 08:53:43 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:53:43 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176625 lizzyben: Mr. Weasley & Snape even use the same phrase to diagnosis these objects - the item is "full of Dark Magic." Sali: I know this is not really the point (but anything else I might have said is probably covered or about to be covered by someone else :) ) but am I right in thinking that Snape alleges that the map is "full of Dark Magic" *after* it insults him? If this is the case, and particularly if he suspects the identity of MWPP, it is possible that his allegation is more a matter of sour grapes than anything else. I'm sure he wants to get Lupin into trouble as much as Harry. I also don't think it's clear cut that the Map does think for itself. Snape is considered by the Marauders to be their enemy. It is possible that it was created with anti-Snape defences and is merely following the default pattern for those who do not activate it correctly. Of course, this then raises the question of how Fred and George worked out how to activate it correctly. I could explain it away but I suspecting it was just something else that wasn't thought through. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rvink7 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 3 09:31:10 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 09:31:10 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sali Morris" wrote: > > > Sali: > I know this is not really the point (but anything else I might have said is > probably covered or about to be covered by someone else :) ) but am I right > in thinking that Snape alleges that the map is "full of Dark Magic" *after* > it insults him? If this is the case, and particularly if he suspects the > identity of MWPP, it is possible that his allegation is more a matter of > sour grapes than anything else. I'm sure he wants to get Lupin into trouble > as much as Harry. > > I also don't think it's clear cut that the Map does think for itself. Snape > is considered by the Marauders to be their enemy. It is possible that it was > created with anti-Snape defences and is merely following the default pattern > for those who do not activate it correctly. Of course, this then raises the > question of how Fred and George worked out how to activate it correctly. I > could explain it away but I suspecting it was just something else that > wasn't thought through. > > Renee: Maybe Fred and George didn't mind being insulted a couple of times and just went on experimenting until they found the key. Being able to laugh at yourself would be a good test for anyone wanting to claim control of the Marauder's Map. Somehow, I can't see Snape doing so at all. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 13:08:43 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 13:08:43 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo, was Re: Ron's Kids names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176627 rowena_grunnionffitch: > > Has anybody else noticed that eldest sons *always* seem to have > their father's name as a middle name? 'William Arthur' 'Albus Percival > (etc)' and so forth. And Ginny, the only daughter has her mother's > name for a middle name. If this is some kind of general rule than > Harry's oldest son is 'James Harry Potter' and his daughter 'Lily > Ginevra Potter'. While Ron and Hermione's two are 'Hugo Ronald Weasley' > and 'Rose Hermione Weasley' which frankly are not very mellifluous > combinations IMO. Lisa: That's actually quite the tradition in my husband's family. We broke the tradition, ah well ... Lisa From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 3 15:42:36 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:42:36 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176628 Sali: > I also don't think it's clear cut that the Map does > think for itself. Snape is considered by the Marauders > to be their enemy. It is possible that it was created > with anti-Snape defences and is merely following the > default pattern for those who do not activate it > correctly. Of course, this then raises the question > of how Fred and George worked out how to activate it > correctly. I could explain it away but I suspecting > it was just something else that wasn't thought through. houyhnhnm: It was pointed out long ago that the Map addressed Snape by his title and the Marauders had no way of knowing that Snape would become a Hogwarts professor. On Harry's first foray into Hogsmeade via the tunnel, he didn't know the incantation to open the statue of the hump-backed witch and the Map supplied it to him. >>The tiniest bubble had appeared next to his figure. The word inside said, "/Dissendium/."<< I take that as evidence that the Map thinks for itself. I can imagine that it revealed the secret of its activation to Fred and George in a similar manner, recognizing them as kindred spirits. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 16:25:49 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:25:49 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176629 zgirnius: Even a clock that is broken shows the right time twice a day. I do not believe I am supposed to believe that young Severus the eleven- year-old on the train, was already irrevocably committed to a career of terror and evil as a Death Eater. Sirius Black indicates he formed this opinion when Sev was 11. I don't believe him, and even if I did, he would have been wrong from what he knew. Prep0strus: Ok, this is all obviously going to be what I decided to read into it, and so just opinion and conjecture, but I think what we see in the pensieve is a snippet, not the whole story. I don't believe Sirius made up his mind as an 11 year old on the train, but I don't believe what happened on the train was all that bad ? a poster made a point a while back that it was different students expressing opinions on the houses, and based on this they all disliked each other ? never commenting on clothes or physical appearance. And I've said many times I believe they knew what was going on in the world. And in the next weeks, months, years, there was more to their relationship and the actions of the students than what we saw. Maybe we didn't see their everyday life ? but we saw what it was like in Harry's time. We saw Draco's bravado about Slytherin, and the Dark Lord, and pureblood supremacy. We saw that these kids had some idea of what these houses meant, the political issues floating around, and an idea of their allegiances. I think it would have been as clear, if not clearer, in the time of Snape and the Marauders. Lily could predict they were planning on joining up with him. It was known that Riddle was out there, that there were these views on muggleborns and also that there was a stigma or badge of honor (depending on where you sat) based on your interest in `the dark arts', whatever they are. You can dismiss Sirius as a broken clock, but I don't see the point. I think he, as well as the comments we see from Lily, Lupin, even Snape were JKR's way of showing us what we needed to be shown - that those Young Death Eaters were bad apples. zgirnius: What is your objection to: "Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends." The original song that introduced people to the House? Were I a young and naive Muggleborn of eleven years, I would be pleased enough to be Sorted into this House, based on that description. I do pride myself on the possession of a set of brains that can come up with unexpected solutions to problems and outwit my opponents in sneaky ways at times. (Though the Hat would take no time at all to send me into Ravenclaw, my obvious home). Prep0strus: Seriously? I worry this discussion can't really go much further, simply because we are truly on such different wavelengths here. (I had a multihour debate with my best friend recently that ended in bemused bafflement and agreement to disagree because we simply could not get any closer to comprehending the other person's position. Never happened quite that extremely before.) Cunning: skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; craftiness; guile. This already has a negative connotation. Considering we already have a house of intelligence (showing what you really identify with, as you believe that is where you would be sorted), she copies a trait that already exists, and gives it a negative spin. Deception and the rest are not always negative ? but more often portrayed that way than positively. Consider the more positive connotations associated with the words forthright, upfront, etc. But more consider the phrase `use any means to achieve their ends'. Could there be a more loaded way of saying what JKR is saying? Ok, there could. Like, `would throw someone under a bus if it meant they could earn a galleon'. But I'm pretty sure that's the idea she's getting across here. I still say there are other qualities out there that could be present in a house. We have mental strength, why not physical strength? What about artisans? We have no house for craftstmen or muscians, writers or artists. Shoot, in the world we have the Weird Sisters, but I can't recall any novels. There could be negotiators ok, getting off track. My point is, that there are other qualities that could have been given to the houses, even in addition to what we were shown. But for Slytherin, we were shown cunning, pure of blood (often false, but a stated house purpose), and unchecked ambition. And there are ways she could have said even these less negatively. Couldn't Slytherins have had `street-smarts' or be `clever' or `practical'? Couldn't they `strive to be the best' or `try their hardest' or even `long for greatness'? No, they'll `use any means'. Never is there even an implication that they might use any means to achieve ends that could be altruistic ? it is `their ends', with an implied selfishness, as we know from `power-hungry Slytherin'. Compare this to other houses ? Griffindors, with their `chivalry' and `brave deeds' (brave not solely a positive thing, but connotationally so) , Hufflepuffs are `just and loyal' and `true'. Ravenclaw appears to have no positive or negative qualities associated with it ? intelligence cutting either way. If only all the houses were designed with such ambiguous opportunity. But Slytherin? Bad. If I had been sorted there, I would have been horrified. I'd be clamoring, `Use any means?! I would not!' And I'd probably be arguing also for a better word for cunning. And this is before we see the terrible things that Slytherins actually do. Of course, I'd probably be going to school in Salem somewhere, so perhaps I should find out how the houses work there. Julie: My guess is that people who "identify" with Slytherin House are identifying with certain qualities bestowed upon Slytherins by the time Harry comes to Hogwarts (even if these qualities were "earned" by the House's predecessors). Prep0strus: What qualities are these? From what we see in the songs, there is blood purity, cunning, and unrestrained personal ambition. From what we see in the books there is selfishness, meanness, intelligence(sometimes), and prejudice. I'm wondering what other qualities were bestowed that you think one might want to identify with. Julie: More specifically that Slytherins are rejected by the other Houses and are the outsiders of the school. Many people who have felt the sting of rejection, and who have been on the outside looking in, especially when they were in school (at an age where rejection and labels like "loser" or "outsider" sting deeply) still have that rejection seared on their souls, and can't help but sympathize with the Slytherins. *Within the Hogwarts school* Slytherins ARE the underdogs, the rejects, the losers who can only hang with each other. and eventually their own actions as they are integrated as eleven-year-old inductees into the Slytherin culture and mindset. Prep0strus: I'm not sure this is the case. Look to GoF, when Slytherins rally together with the rest of the school against Harry. More often than not, Harry (when he's not the wonderous hero ? those students sure are fickle) is the outcast. Slytherin has won the Quidditch cup for years before Harry shows up. Draco is rich and powerful, and does not appear to be anyone's reject. He definitely WANTS Slytherin house, is powerful within it, and does not appear to be bullied or suffer outside of of it either. I don't see him being called loser or outsider. Certainly not more than Harry and his friends often are. Hermione, the class nerd was more of one in the beginning, Harry is a bit of a freak, Neville is something of a loser, and Luna in the class below is a real wacko. You don't see scenes of Griffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs sitting around mocking Slytherins ? maybe, by book 5, when those 3 houses start to come together in the DA to fight evil but also, in that book, it is Slytherins who take to the new, offensive school order and rule the school ? they are not oppressed within it. And it is also the time that Draco and his friends begin to turn towards the adult death eaters. Before that point, Slytherins were maybe not as evil, but also not outcasts. They are only opposing the rest of the school when they choose to join with first Umbridge, then Voldemorte. Again this status may be deserved based on the actions of their predecessors, Julie: I personally don't identify with Slytherin so much as I deeply sympathize with Slytherins. Mostly because I'll never accept it as in any manner reflective of a decent society to dump eleven year old children into this House steeped in the prejudices of its predecessors, this House that shouldn't even exist, and abandon them with not a single effort by any adult to offer them other options or to convince them that there is a better mindset, with either words *or* with actions. Prep0strus: The reason I can't sympathize with them is because it IS their actions. Now, no doubt, they are raised this way, but I think the fault lies more with their parents than with the House that places them together. Also, it depends on the world. I also think the house should simply not exist ? it contains nothing worth emulating or being a part of. However, these students and parents WANT it to exist, because they are proud to have these despicable traits. It depends on how you see the world JKR has created. Throughout 6 books, I thought that there was a reason for Slytherin house, that it had good qualities not shown to us that would be revealed, that the people in it were also equal, if twisted. However, after the 7th, and JKR not showing us these worthwhile qualities, or worthwhile people, I am inclined to agree with the Calvinist people who believes that they simply are no good, from the beginning, and are sorted together with other bad people. I don't like that, at all, but I don't think she gave me enough to think otherwise. Julie: But the ones we have been discussing *at Hogwarts* are CHILDREN. Yes they have racist attitudes, but no they do NOT kill and terrorize the WW. At least NOT YET. This concept of eleven year old children who are already so morally bankrupt they have "almost no hope for salvation" is absolutely horrifying to me. And in your example of not giving a Nazi a chance, this really translates to condemning the children of Nazis, who were after all indoctrinated at home to share their parents' views. I don't recall this happening, as I believe they were given the encouragement to adopt new and more enlightened views, and presumably most of them did so and became productive members of society. And there is the difference. JKR's message seems to be that Slytherin children are beyond this type of assistance, as no one puts in even the smallest effort into turning them away from their destructive path. I must say this is a message I absolutely detest, even if it references a fictional world. Julie, who places plenty of blame on the adult teachers and the headmaster of Hogwarts for the condition and mindset of Slytherin House, because they *are* the adults and they allow the situation persist. They are the "good men who do nothing." Prep0strus: You are right, truly, when it comes to the real world. I'm not sure the analogy fits as well within the wizarding world. First, Harry's impressions of Slytherins are also very much impacted by the way he was treated by Draco and other Slytherins ? their unsportsmanlike behavior in Quidditch matches, their bullying, their praise of the people responsible for slaughtering the parents of other students. By the fifth and sixth year, they also are on their way to terrorizing the ww. It's not even that I say completely `don't give nazi's a chance', it's just that I'm not going to hold Harry responsible for it. I think Slytherins are responsible for their actions, and Griffindors are not responsible for recognizing that Slytherins have been created incorrigible by some outside force and pitying them for it. I don't see Slytherins, in the book, as put upon, as oppressed freaks. I see them as mean and horrible. As for what you say about what JKR did I believe that as well. I think it is horrible. I hate that she did this. I hate that there is no equality in the houses. I detest it at as well. I don't go as far in blaming the teachers and the headmaster because, well it seems too late. Besides that the parents would start an uproar. Maybe they need to start going to school before 11. Maybe the entire world needs to change its attitudes so that Slytherin views in the real world are so looked down upon so that they are not so bold in saying what they say. Abolishing the Slytheirn house couldn't hurt. But my point is more that JKR didn't show us that any of this would be worthwhile ? she seems to have simply shown us that some people are not very good. And, even as I agree with you about the horrible message she's sending, I still wonder so, why identify with that? Slytherins may be HER outsiders ? but she didn't create a weak, miserable, pathetic group for the other groups to spit on, demean, and feel better than (ok, maybe she did, but those people are called `house elves'). She created, a strong, powerful, horribly nasty, selfish, prejudiced group, that WE the reader can feel better than ? and that the other characters in the book ARE better than. Why identify with the rich nasty pureblood supremacists who cheat at sports and do anything to get what they want? To some small extent, I get why people identify with Sev over the Marauders ? he was poor and they were rich. James was an athlete, and it is described that they might be more popular (though it's hard to say what popularity means when Sev has his own Young Death Eater group). But Slytherins as a whole, especially what we've seen in Harry's time, don't reflect this. Adam (Prep0strus), who feels that he maybe should have made two posts out of this one From nboja at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 15:43:02 2007 From: nboja at yahoo.com (nboja) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:43:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176630 Carol: > Which "good, courageous, noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors" are > you referring to? The Gryffindors I know may be courageous, but > they're rule breakers, often rude or tactless, sometimes arrogant, > and intolerant of any House except their own most of the time. > (Hermione has her causes, notably SPEW, but she's mistaken about > their views, trying to impose her idea of what's right on them, and > she doesn't mind engaging in occasional blackmail. Neither do the > Twins.) So, except for Harry's sacrifice at the end of DH, > his "saving people" thing, which is more likely to cause problems > than to solve them, and the friendship of the Trio, which survives > despite some rather severe testing, I'd be hard-pressed to call the > Gryffindors noble. And what's interesting *to me* is that > the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape and > Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas > Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for > Slughorn. Until HBP, we didn't really see the various Slytherins > as people, but in the last two books we do. And so, I think, does > Harry. nboja: Wow, this is exactly how I feel. I feel that there is no house worthy of beeing called "good" or "bad". It all depends on the person alone, and they also have the choice to be put in the house they want, just like Harry chose to be in Gryffindor, remember the hat said he would do well in Slythern and was about to put him there. As for Snape being put in Slythern, I think that he asked to be there to spite James from the ride on the train. And that's why he probably wants to study the dark arts as well. Or it can be that he foresaw that in order to beat the dark arts you have to understand it; just like a disease it's bad for people but in order to defeat it we must understand how it works. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 17:27:57 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:27:57 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic / Choices for eleven year olds/ Lily knew about werewolf or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176631 Prep0strus: > Except that he's right. That's what makes all the difference. We > can argue how well JKR set all of this up, but the point is, Sirius is > RIGHT. Severus's interest and knowledge DID lead him to make > different choices. zgirnius: Even a clock that is broken shows the right time twice a day. I do not believe I am supposed to believe that young Severus the eleven- year-old on the train, was already irrevocably committed to a career of terror and evil as a Death Eater. Sirius Black indicates he formed this opinion when Sev was 11. I don't believe him, and even if I did, he would have been wrong from what he knew. Alla: But wait Zara, I thought all that prep0strus was saying is that Sirius' judgment was **correct**, turned out to be correct? You do not believe his judgment when he talks about eleven year old Snape, I get it, but there is no dispute that Snape's choices turned out to be different, so I guess what it turns out to be for me is that indeed Sirius turning out to be right makes all the difference. Who says anything about excusing Sirius behavior in pensieve scene? But do I believe that based on their eleven year olds self we are supposed to see that Sirius and Severus already making different choices? Oh yes, I absolutely do. Did Sirius know that Severus will become DE? I doubt it of course. BUT I think we can safely see it as a hint of Snape's future that "knew more curses" thing. Again, IMO. prep0strus: > But the thing that isn't > debatable is that Sirius didn't become a Death Eater, and Severus did. zgirnius: You will note, please, that I was not debating that. 21 year old Severus Snape was a Dark Wizard. 21 year old Sirius Black was a member of the Order of the Phoenix. This does not retroactively excuse Sirius's behavior as a fifth year, or, if he made it, his prejudiced judgment of Severus as a first year. Alla: Right, see above and I was also thinking that they made their choices earlier than twenty one. Minor point, but still, while I obviously cannot prove that Snape was already DE at school, it is pretty much canon, that at least at nineteen they already made their choices, isn't it? Snape went his merry ways with the gang of DE and Potters and Sirius went to fight for Order of Phoenix. I mean when Harry was born, Potters were less then twenty years of age and Snape passed the prophecy before that. I think they made their choices **really** early. Sirius talks about Snape at eleven. No, I do not think that it is that strange that he already shows the behavior which would lead him at nineteen to be a DE. I guess I am saying what I had been saying all along about Slytherin house all this time. What good guys feel about them in the books is not prejudice, it is them taking a stand against bad guys. That is why I also do not think that Sirius' not liking Severus at eleven is prejudice. I would not call it taking a stand of course, since Severus did not do anything to them yet, but I am totally taking it as a hint from Rowling. IMO of course. > houyhnhnm: > > It was pointed out long ago that the Map addressed Snape > by his title and the Marauders had no way of knowing that > Snape would become a Hogwarts professor. > Alla: But did Dumbledore's portrait know all that things that were about to happen when he discussed them with Snape or with Harry at the end? > Renee: > Maybe Fred and George didn't mind being insulted a couple of times and > just went on experimenting until they found the key. Being able to > laugh at yourself would be a good test for anyone wanting to claim > control of the Marauder's Map. Somehow, I can't see Snape doing so at all. > Alla: Snape laughing at himself? Boggart scene anyone? I think it is a safe assumption to make that Snape never laughed at himself, ever. Julie: But the ones we have been discussing *at Hogwarts* are CHILDREN. Yes they have racist attitudes, but no they do NOT kill and terrorize the WW. At least NOT YET. This concept of eleven year old children who are already so morally bankrupt they have "almost no hope for salvation" is absolutely horrifying to me. Alla: Sure in the RW it is, although as I wrote in the past, I do think that there are plenty of horrible eleven year olds as well, but sure I would not say that the bad attitudes cannot change at eleven as a rule. But I was about to comment on something a bit different in that topic, which I am not sure why I did not realize earlier. Or maybe I did, but totally do not remember. We keep talking about how horrible it is to show that the eleven year olds are horrible, etc, but are we sure that this is what JKR meant to show? Ugh, bear with me please. There is a great Russian fantasy/ sf writer Sergey Lukianenko ( he wrote Night watch book, and the movie was shown in some US theaters too). His early stories were pretty much all about kids. I thought psychologically they were fascinating, absolutely fascinating. I mean, he has psychiatrist background, so he knows his stuff. Anyways, you would be amazed at the horrible things some kids do in his stories. They often take place during some sort of galactic wars or other extreme situations ? betrayal, murder, etc, etc. And guess what, they often do die for that or have other bad things happened to them So, I sincerely doubt that Lukianenko meant to show that those kids have no salvation, you know? I think he writes stories where kids are sort of meant to be looked as adults, you know? Does that make sense? While his stories do not have much in common with Rowling in the sense of magical set up, I think at least today that his world is also mainly the world of kids, where kids carrying out adult tasks and often take on adult responsibilities and maybe supposed to be blamed as adults too? It is hard to say, I am not sure I am married to this idea, but wouldn't you say that if in Rowling's world sixteen seventeen year olds are saving the world, accordingly people of the same age or earlier should carry out full responsibility for their racist attitudes? Like in one of Lukianenko stories which I read long time ago, the kid of I think ( not sure I remember) thirteen betrayed their comrades in war and he was sort of forced into it and he is still in prison and they were prepared to execute him, I am pretty sure, although not hundred percent positive. I do not think I read out of that story that thirteen year olds who do horrible things are irredeemable, just that in that world they sort of get no slack for that. I mean of course my whole speech only applies if one thinks that Slytherin house bears full blame for their ideology, but for them being children. On the other hand of course I know the objection coming ? then what should we do with Marauders and Snape ? blame them full stop too? I do not know. Mike: I can't speak for Alla, but as she has interpreted for me a few times, I think I'll return the favor. LOLOL. I think her point was that Lily didn't make the connection between Sev's theory on Lupin and "whatever's down there" being that same werewolf. And it doesn't matter, Sev isn't accusing the Marauders of practicing "Dark Magic". He's just accusing them of getting up to some shenanigans. Once Lily called James a toerag, Sev didn't care anymore about any Dark Magic accusations. IMO, that was because he wasn't trying to convince Lily that Potter and Co. were practicing Dark Arts, he just wanted her to not like him, plain and simple. Alla: See Mike, I love your posts so much that it gets not one but two separate responses from me ;) I had have to think about this point to make sure that I am absolutely clear on what I meant, since I was so delightfully erm vague on this one yesterday. Here is what I meant, I hope clear enough. 1. I am convinced that Snape had a "theory" before he went to the Shack and that theory was that Remus Lupin is a werewolf. 2. I am convinced that he informed Lily about that "theory" before Prank occurred. 3. I **was** thinking that Lily did make that connection because she knew the theory. Somebody explained to me that whatever means that she did not know what is down there, as opposed to *what** is down there. So, I still cannot **completely** exclude the possibility that she knew, or at least deduced that, but I accept that it is likely that she did not do that. I just, you know, cannot accept that if somebody told me that hey, I think Lupin is a werewolf that is why he is there in the Shack AND then Prank occurs and Lily can completely block out whatever Snape told her before, meaning to block out the theory. 4. Having said all that, I definitely agree with you that it **does not matter**, I am not sure how it morphed into accusations of Dark magic against Marauders, how it became a comparison between what Mulciber did and prank. From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Sep 3 17:39:00 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:39:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176632 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > lizzyben wrote: > > > Well, Harry himself does not seem driven by vengeance or hatred at > the end of DH, but IMO the novel itself is. Voldie is still killed in the end. And that's a happy ending. Rowena: Yes, very. I don't see a problem here. Voldemort, unlike Darth Vader, does not see the error of his ways or make an eleventh hour effort for redemption. He is and remains irredeemably evil *By his own acts and will*. There can be no redemption where there is no remorse and frankly remorse from Voldy at this point would be pretty darn unbelievable wouldn't you agree? From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Sep 3 17:42:23 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:42:23 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709021427y186fe7f8id6f22fca3724ffc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176633 I honestly don't mean to be difficult here... > Magpie: > > > > We do know her [Tonks'] house from interviews. She was Hufflepuff, not > > Slytherin. So JKR does not have her symbolizing a marriage of > > Gryffindor and Slytherin. (If she was supposed to do that, shouldn't > > she just be a Slytherin?) An aside, but I don't think of them as a > > quarrelling couple as I understand the term. We don't see them > > quarrel much. Lupin is reticent and Tonks chases him. Lupin quarrels > > with Harry. > > > > Debbie: > I don't read interviews, nor have I ever believed anything in an interview > to be canon, but the primary point was that Tonks and Fleur have Slytherin > connections. Whatever her house, Tonks was a member of the Black family. I > suppose JKR thinks Slytherin is too tainted with the cancer to use actual > Slytherins for this symbolic role. Magpie: Neither Tonks nor Fleur are Slytherins. Tonks is the daughter of a Black who is barely in the book, and she herself is *not* associated with Slytherin ever, any more than Sirius Black is. Fleur doesn't even have that--where is she associated with Slytherin? I think the fact that we have to reach for non-Slytherins to be good Slytherins undercuts the idea that Slytherin is being shown in a good light here. > > Magpie: > > Honestly, I think when you get this creative, you could prove Hugo > > represents just about anything. > > > > Debbie: > The vast majority of names (mine for example) have absolutely no alchemical > connections; JKR has selected names that do. Victor Hugo clearly had an > interest in alchemy, and the Viktor Krum joke (which is the kind of joke JKR > likes to play) seals the deal for me. JKR's names are not randomly chosen, > and I don't buy the notion that JKR picked Rose and Hugo because they're > currently popular in the UK. Magpie: Okay, they're associated with alchemy. But I still don't see anything in the story that indicates a coming together of Slytherin and Gryffindor due to the name. Couldn't they just be names that are associated with alchemy without it meaning that? Maybe they're just pure. > Magpie: > > > Nope no comfort at all--makes me more wonder why she put the stupid > > song in there at all. The unity wasn't necessary, it didn't happen, > > and if JKR didn't write it I'm not writing it in myself (at least, > > not as an add-on to canon--I can imagine whatever I want in my head.) > > > > Debbie: > I never expected to see real house unity within the pages of these books, > because I thought Voldemort had tainted Slytherin House to the point where > it couldn't happen. I reread the OOP Sorting Hat song recently and > concluded that it can be read much more ambiguously -- like a prophecy. > > I do see eventual house unity as a reasonable interpretation of the > implications of the epilogue. No, it never happens on-page, but it would be > a very boring story. Magpie: Why would it have to be a boring story? I don't see any reason that JKR couldn't have written a good story with that theme if that was the theme that interested her. It's not less inherently interesting than the Elder Wand and Deathly Hallows stuff. Obviously if that had been the story she wanted to write she would have written it in an interesting way, and not as Gryffindor and Slytherin forming joint Quidditch teams. That it's not there to me means she didn't want to write it, not that she couldn't come up with a good way to write it. > Magpie: > > > I can't imagine getting much out of any story that was based on this > > kind of symbolism if it wasn't actually played out with the > > characters. It seems to me more like the school was just purified > > enough by getting rid of Slytherin in the crunch, leaving them only > > with the Slytherins who had purified themselves in Gryffindor fire. > > > > Debbie: > I'm not getting your point. This cycle concluded with getting rid of > Voldemort. Some Slytherins helped with this, but they did it their own way, > not by undergoing some sort of Gryffindor purification. The school was left > with all the Slytherins, whether they had purified themselves or not. > Salazar may have poisoned Slytherin, but if the taint was irreparable they > should have gotten rid of Slytherin House. The fact that they have not says > something. The fact that Famous Harry Potter, with a long Gryffindor > legacy, tells his son (with an equally long Gryffindor legacy through his > Weasley side) that it's fine to be a Slytherin says something, too. Magpie: My point was that symbolism is just intellectual play if it's not reflected in the story, so just saying in the epilogue that there are symbols that indicate that after the story is over such and such will happen says nothing to me if I can't tie it to the actual story. For the symbols to mean something they'd be shown meaning that--just as many symbols are in the story. Yet to me it seems like the epilogue just confirms Slytherin's place as the odd house out years after the fact. That's what I meant about the Harmonian interpretation vs., say, R/Hr--in the end Ron and Hermione kissing and being jealous of each other and getting married carries far more weight as canon for the two of them being a couple than alchemical symbolism for H/Hr. Canon, imo, says flat-out that Salazar created Slytherin in his image and nothing about his tainting. (And it's bad in more ways than just the Pureblood ideology.) They do not get rid of Slytherin house, according to the author, because you have to accept the less noble qualities of the school/people around too. I don't take that as canon because it's in an interview, but because that's the idea I see reflected in the books. Harry's line to AS to me says that he loves his son no matter what house he's in. He says nothing particularly positive about Slytherin the house--nor can he, because the story didn't give him anything positive to say. The most he can say is that there have historically been some Slytherins who are impressive, one of whom Harry has named his child after for some reason. But for me, if you have a huge division throughout a book with the Slytherins obviously being the bad guys, I need that to be actually addressed in the books and fixed for it to be fixed. Having Harry say in a scene from 19 years later, in response to his children telling us that Slytherin is *still the bad house in their generation* that his son shouldn't worry about being a Slytherin because his parents love him no matter what, and that he is named after a Slytherin who was brave (the quality of Gryffindor), but if he's really worried he can just tell the hat he doesn't want Slytherin just as Harry himself has been praised for doing throughout the story says *something* to me, it just doesn't say Slytherin and Gryffindor are on their way to uniting. I still so no reason on earth any good person in this universe would *want* to be in Slytherin. Within the last book Slytherin honestly became more like background word-building to me. The real story was about Harry. Slytherin didn't matter. If Voldemort had been the problem, I think Slytherin absolutely *should* be united with the school by now. This is a school, after all. Trends happen fast. Nineteen years of okay Slytherins is plenty of time to get rid of a bad rep. > Magpie: > So they're no longer trying to kill each other. That's the happy > ending, and that's fine. I don't think it makes Slytherin not the > worst house. Thousands of pages tell me this and there's nothing that > overhauls the house that I can see. You feel that kiilling Voldemort > will magically change the personality of Slytherin, one that was bad > beyond its Pureblood mania? I think that's just speculating what > might happen outside the book in our mind. I see nothing in the book > that sets of Voldemort as the bad element that's preying on the good > element that is Slytherin. I see Slytherins being less admirable > people at every turn, in different ways (not just as Pureblood > supremists), and with no hint of some magic spell that Voldemort cast > to make them as bad as we see. Even in your history here you seem to > be saying that it's better now because they no longer have a leader > that will bring all their bad qualities together--and that I would > say is true, but that doesn't make the Slytherins better as > individual personalities. It keeps their potential for hurting others > in check,imo. > > Debbie: > I'm quite confused by this last statement. I just don't see how the > potential for hurting others is in any way a Slytherin trait. It was a DE > trait, and now the DEs are gone. Gryffindors hurt people, too. Magpie: But Slytherin is the house of bad guys who bully the protagonists. The ones who made up most of the DE ranks. Instances of Gryffindors hurting people were pretty much all okay iirc--they're just having fun, being young, making honest mistakes, punishing the guilty, defending themselves and fighting for the victory of good over evil. The books *did not* go the way of showing that all the houses have the same potential for evil that I can see. They seemed to take a very different view towards Gryffindors hurting people than Slytherins doing the same. Debbie: > I had to read this several times to understand your point, because in my > mind the "generic bully house" is not Slytherin. It is Gryffindor. There > is a targeted campaign against Harry, but I don't see any Slytherins hexing > people because they can, or picking on helpless muggles such as Dudley. > Gryffindor arrogance and recklessness produces actions that drive Slytherins > to revenge. Perhaps this colors my reading, because I see the Gryffindors > as having blood on their hands, too (although, admittedly, I'm not sure JKR > shares my view). Magpie: I think the Gryffindors can be jerks too, but I would still have to ignore *a lot* in canon to convince myself they're supposed to be the generic bully house instead of Slytherin. By the rules of their own universe, which is what I'm talking about here, they imo are not. They don't drive Slytherins to revenge, they foil their evil plans-- the Slytherins then show themselves worse by not accepting it and coming back for more. (Believe me, I was expecting that sort of lesson about the Prank, but the last book seemed to tell me that no, I was totally wrong about that.) If JKR doesn't share your view as much as I do, how can this be the basis for what she's saying happens at the end of canon? > Magpie: > > > > Was Voldemort the root of the problem so his destruction will heal > > the rift? I don't feel confident to say that's true. I really don't > > see Voldemort specifically set up that way. > > > > Debbie: > Do you see Voldemort set up as the logical result of the pursuit of > Slytherin traits of ambition and cunning? I don't. His ambition was power > over everyone and everything, including death, and he was willing to use any > means to obtain it, including shredding his own humanity. I think > Gryffindor traits could be harnessed equally well to achieve power. In the > end, what defeated Voldemort was love, not bravery. Magpie: The Slytherin traits of ambition and cunning are a different thing for me than Slytherins. This is why I (and perhaps others who see Slytherin as the shadow house) think the shadow reading is so obvious. Cunning and ambition are both mostly shown in more positive lights when they appear in other people. Take Ambition, which is particularly interesting to me. The four most ambitious characters in canon are all basically good guys: Hermione is very ambitions, the twins even more so, and so is Percy, who eventually is good and is a Gryffindor. All of those characters display ambition by being naturally talented and working hard. Slytherin, imo, displays what seem to be considered more negative versions of ambition in this universe: they're associated with cheating, bribery, bullying and networking to get ahead. To me it seems like ambition is simply split--it's said to be a trait of Slytherin, but they get the shadow qualities while Gryffindors get the better parts. > Debbie: > But I don't read pureblood supremacy as being a characteristic of Slytherin > House. Perhaps I think of house characteristics in more Jungian terms, but > the traits of the houses are character traits, Pureblood supremacy is an > ideology, and the traits of any house can be called upon to support an > ideology. Magpie: However, Pureblood supremacy *is* a characteristic of Slytherin house. It's one of the founding principles as told to us by the Sorting Hat. That belief exists outside of Slytherin, but we are told it's officially linked to Slytherin. I read the house in more Jungian terms as well, but that reading led to the opposite conclusion than what I got, as I said above. If I was really supposed to be reading Slytherin house as the Jungian shadow, then the story seems like one of ultimate failure to me. > > Magpie: > Whether Tom Riddle believes it or not doesn't really matter--I would > say that he does believe it, yes. Almost every character in canon > who's said anything bigoted about Pure-blood supremacy has been said > to "not really believe it" underneath (it's always those other > characters who really believe this stuff). I think they do believe > themselves superior (or at least want to, if we get into the anxiety > that might be lurking in their unconscious). > > Debbie: > Again, I've never seen this as a *Slytherin* viewpoint. Elsewhere, we see > pureblood attitudes such as that expressed by Ernie MacMillan in CoS. Ernie > is presented as a generally good character, yet was quite emphatic about his > pureblood ancestry. It is a matter of pride with him. Magpie: Yes, I agree. We do see it other places besides Slytherin. But saying it's not a Slytherin viewpoint seems to require ignoring a lot of stuff said flat-out in canon. This is another place where the books surprise me by *not* linking certain attitudes on the good side to attitudes on the bad side to the extent I expected. Ernie Macmillan is pompous and brags about being Pure-blood, but he also seems to be bff with a Muggle-born, totally pro-Potter and anti-Voldemort. > Magpie: > > No, Voldemort was not "the cancer." Voldemort was the cause of the > > most recent two wars. The "cancer" of Slytherin if there is one, > > imo, at best in remission, still latent and untreated. > > Debbie: > The death of Voldemort was surgery to remove a particularly ugly tumor. > Muggleborn prejudice had a very long history in the WW, and the defeat > of Voldemort clearly wouldn't be sufficient to extinguish it. But more > treatment -- some chemo to alter WW attitudes generally, not just > Slytherin -- was necessary after that. My reading of the epilogue is that > some of that treatment has happened. Magpie: Where in canon are we explitly shown that Voldemort being "cut out" of Slytherin is the first step in treatment? Or anything about chemo happening after the story is over? As much as this idea makes perfect sense to me, I just don't see any evidence for it in canon. Other ideas are stated freely, and this idea is not among them. In places where it could be said it seems like the author goes out of her way to not say it and grabs any opportunity she can to suggest otherwise. Then she has nothing where the actual house of Slytherin decides to throw off these ideals for something else. Like I said, it's not that I don't see the logic of this idea, and it would work fine for the story--I just don't see it *in* the story. It seems more like taking elements of the story and putting them together in a different way. Which is why so much of explaining why it's not a house characteristic relies on rejecting stuff in canon rather than just providing an alternative Slytherin that ever existed within canon. We're stuck arguing away consistent connections between Slytherin and Pure-blood supremacy and other bad qualities because the book forgot to do it for us. Could the Sorting Hat's late mention of the Pureblood stuff be a sign that it wasn't really part of the original idea? Could be. But since the story doesn't make that an issue it ultimately doesn't seem like I can use it as a guiding principle for what's going on. (And Slytherin also seems to still have more problems besides the Pureblood supremacy with the vague "Dark Magic" associations and the general unpleasantness.) As the books go on it seems more associated with bad things both in the past and in the future. Again, it's not that I don't see any appeal in this idea. I think it's pretty good--but that's why I think it would be there in the book if it were canon. I just don't think it is. It just seems like it requires one to demand an incredibly high level of canonical proof for stuff that doesn't fit the theory while accepting far less for stuff that does. Ultimately the Gryffindor/Slytherin superiority idea *wasn't* overturned that I saw, nor was there any real coming together of the two houses, in the story or the epilogue. The heroes could be heroes without it. -m From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Sep 3 17:47:52 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:47:52 -0000 Subject: Rose & Hugo - Explanation of Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176634 > Here is my take: > > Rose is actually named after her mother!! "Hermione" is a type of > English Rose. Hugo was named as an allusion to the 13th Century > Scottish noble, Sir Hugo de Gifford, who was known as the 'Wizard of > Yester'. He was considered to be a powerful warlock and necromancer > who built Yester Castle (aka Ha'Goblins Hall) through magic. > -Lily That's a very interesting and likely possibility. I bet Hermione knows all about her own name and namesakes and it would be just like her to name her son after a famous wizard. And if said wizard was one who'd had an ususually good relationship with Goblins (Goblin Hall) it would give an extra dimension of meaning to her use of the name. I can see Ron letting her have her head in the matter. 'Rose? sure, that's a real pretty name, honey.' Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 3 19:07:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:07:10 -0000 Subject: help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176635 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" wrote: > houyhnhnm: > > It was pointed out long ago that the Map addressed Snape > by his title and the Marauders had no way of knowing that > Snape would become a Hogwarts professor. > > On Harry's first foray into Hogsmeade via the tunnel, he > didn't know the incantation to open the statue of the > hump-backed witch and the Map supplied it to him. > >>The tiniest bubble had appeared next to his figure. > The word inside said, "/Dissendium/."<< > > I take that as evidence that the Map thinks for itself. > I can imagine that it revealed the secret of its activation > to Fred and George in a similar manner, recognizing them > as kindred spirits. Geoff: I suggested a couple of days ago that the Map might be something like a SatNav system which is pre-programmed to respone in certain ways to requests. If you recall, Snape triggers a response on his third attempt: '"Let me see, let me see..." he muttered, taking out his wand and smoothing the map out on his desk. "Reveal your secret!" he said, touching the wand to the parchment. Nothing happened. Harry clenched his hands to stop them shaking. "Show yourself!" Snape said, tapping the map sharply. It stayed blank. Harry was taking deep, calming breaths. "Professor Severus Snape, master of this school, commands you to yield the information you conceal!" Sanpe said, hitting the map with his wand.' (POA "Snape's Grudge" p.211 UK edition) Once Snape reveals his name,- and title - the map reacts and it picks up the fact that he is 'Professor' Snape. And the fact that ihe doesn't use the 'standard' opening, i.e. 'I solemnly swear that I am up to no good' triggers the friendly message to intruders! A bit like trying to get into a friend's computer without the right password perhaps.... From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 3 19:26:27 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:26:27 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176636 > > > > lizzyben wrote: > > > > Well, Harry himself does not seem driven by vengeance or hatred > > at the end of DH, but IMO the novel itself is. Voldie is > > still killed in the end. And that's a happy ending. > > Rowena: > > Yes, very. I don't see a problem here. Voldemort, unlike Darth > Vader, does not see the error of his ways or make an eleventh hour > effort for redemption. He is and remains irredeemably evil *By his > own acts and will*. There can be no redemption where there is no > remorse and frankly remorse from Voldy at this point would be > pretty darn unbelievable wouldn't you agree? Steve: I would agree that Voldemort in spite of the free will we all have, whether wizard, witch or muggle wasn't likely to choose remorseful repentance. To his credit, Harry did offer him that chance for Vader like redemption and it was flatly rejected. It kind of reminded me of Newton's Law that "a body in motion tends to stay in motion and a body at rest tends to stay at rest". In LV's case, I rewrote the law into "a body entirely evil tends to stay evil". I would have certainly been shocked if LV had shown remorse. From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Sep 3 19:57:08 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:57:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's age. In-Reply-To: <002901c7ed43$67bc64a0$a6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> References: <002901c7ed43$67bc64a0$a6c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <46DC6714.8010108@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176637 Cathy Drolet wrote: > zanoodasaid: >>> Now that it turns out that DD was born in 1881, the whole thing is more believable, IMO. If DD was 115 when he died in 1996, there would be something like 9-10 years difference between him and Muriel, right? She > was a little girl when Ariana died, but at least she was born already :-)! I'm just glad that at least one DH inconsistency is down!<< > > Unfortunately, it only makes it worse as she has already stated, in 2000, that he was about 150 years old. Making up new stuff now, because she made mistakes in the past, doesn't solve the problem that she didn't make up the backstories right in the first place. > > Just like Grindelwald's death in DH contradicts a confirmation JKR made, > in 2005, that he died in 1945, I've _always_ said we shouldn't trust "confirmations" for one specific reason - if she contradicts an assumption the person asking the question makes, she has to give away part of the plot. I also think she should be forgiven for this. What _could_ she have said that wouldn't either have given the appearance that he had died, or would have revealed that he would appear (and, presumably, be important to the plot)? The question wasn't "Is Grindelwald still alive", it was asking if she picked 1945 for a reason. She answered truthfully. She failed to contradict a leading question, but to do so would have given too much away. She didn't _lie_ in "saying" that Grindelwald had died, since his death was neither the question nor the answer. From random832 at fastmail.us Mon Sep 3 20:12:30 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 16:12:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: <001d01c7ed70$4fb5e7f0$04c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> References: <001d01c7ed70$4fb5e7f0$04c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <46DC6AAE.9080004@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176638 Cathy Drolet wrote: > Renee: > Then this is probably not going to help: If DD died at the end of > Harry's sixth year, 1996 ought to be 1997. > > > Yes, Renee, I caught that too, but I just can't keep up with all of her mistakes in time to > send one e-mail to the list. It is absolutely nuts. If I was that bad in math (and I probably am > close) and was writing a book that depended upon mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc., I would > have at least one person close to me who was very, very good at math, double and triple checking > everything I wrote. Why not just NOT write a book that depends on mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc.? I'm a bit confused with your assertion that the HP series _does_ to any significant extent depend on such things. The reason it gets so much emphasis in fandom is because it's easy - every amateur critic can jump in and look up the full moons for 1993, or days of the week, or where mars was, and they can provide hard PROOF for how this is a mistake, so no-one can argue with them like they can for ships or snape or anything else. It's a cheap shot. Put simply, it's lame. To a lesser extent, so do arguments based on the interview quotes. So is it any surprise that we see those issues get so much play on forums nad lists like this one? From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 3 19:42:16 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:42:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176639 > Carol: > Which "good, courageous, noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors" > are you referring to? The Gryffindors I know may be courageous, but > they're rule breakers, often rude or tactless, sometimes arrogant, > and intolerant of any House except their own most of the time. > (Hermione has her causes, notably SPEW, but she's mistaken about > their views, trying to impose her idea of what's right on them, > and she doesn't mind engaging in occasional blackmail. Neither do > the Twins.) So, except for Harry's sacrifice at the end of DH, > his "saving people" thing, which is more likely to cause problems > than to solve them, and the friendship of the Trio, which survives > despite some rather severe testing, I'd be hard-pressed to call > the Gryffindors noble. And what's interesting *to me* is that > the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape and > Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas > Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for > Slughorn. Until HBP, we didn't really see the various Slytherins > as people, but in the last two books we do. And so, I think, does > Harry. Winterfell: I think there are plenty of examples of Gryffindors being noble and even more importantly, brave throughout the novels. With bravery and courage as the qualities most exemplified by Gryffindor we have: Ron sacrificing himself in the chess match in SS; Harry's going after the Sorceror's stone; Harry rescuing Ginny in CoS; the rescue of Buckbeak and Sirius in PoA; Harry trying to rescue Gabrielle and Ron and Hermione in GoF; Harry going with DD to try and destroy a horcrux in HBP; and all that Harry and many other Gryffindors did in DH to fight LV and the DE's. These are just a few instances of acts of bravery and/or nobility by Gryffindors. Can anyone cite others? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 3 20:20:30 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 13:20:30 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Responses of children In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709031320h1d6b57b4g13b83404fdc085a6@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176640 va32h: My daughter is 11, nearly 12, and no, she didn't get that out of it. Her understanding was that Slytherins were evil from day one, and they were still evil, and Harry's just a really, really nice dad who wouldn't get mad at his kid for being stuck in the evil house. (Because he's Harry, and Harry is a great man and he might have gotten stuck in the evil house too, even though he wouldn't have deserved it). But Albus Severus wouldn't get stuck in the bad house anyway, because Harry told him that he could choose. So the whole scene just shows that Harry is really, really good. And that he forgave Snape for being so horrible. Lynda: My pastor's son, who was nearly 12 when he read DH and is in many ways very sheltered, understood that she was saying that the Slytherans can change and thought it was "neat" that Draco changed a little in the last book and that Harry told Al that it would be ok if he was put into slytheran. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From winterfell7 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 3 19:59:16 2007 From: winterfell7 at hotmail.com (mesmer44) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 19:59:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176641 > Carol: > And what's interesting *to me* is that > the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape and > Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas > Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for > Slughorn. Until HBP, we didn't really see the various Slytherins > as people, but in the last two books we do. And so, I think, does > Harry. Winterfell: I'm not so sure Slytherin students loved Snape. They may have admired him, fearfully respected him or even liked him for the nasty things he did to Harry and other Gryffindors; but IMO I don't know if they really "loved" Snape. I do think Slughorn is capable of courage and does have many virtues that other Slytherins could aspire to. I can't recall instances where Slytherins were portrayed by JKR as loving or virtuous or genial. Please give me more specific examples if this was so. The Malfoys did show love and devotion to each other, but did they show that kind of love outside their family? Just the fact most Slytherins supported LV openly and had many DE's amoungst their ranks was a reason for me not to see them as virtuous or loving individuals. At the end of DH, we have Narcissa helping Harry, but that was to protect her son. Now it is virtuous to protect your child, I will concede that. But that's as far as I'll use the word Virtue in the same sentence with Narcissa Malfoy. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 21:26:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:26:21 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176642 Prep0strus: > Ok, this is all obviously going to be what I decided to read into it, and so just opinion and conjecture, but I think what we see in the pensieve is a snippet, not the whole story. Carol responds: I'm pretty sure that the snippets were chosen by the author to reveal what she felt needed to be revealed--for example, that Severus did nothing to earn his nickname of Snivellus and that he saw Slytherin as the house for brains. It's no coincidence that James's sneer at Slytherin is virtually identical to Draco's sneer at Hufflepuff in SS/PS. There is no further opportunity in canon to provide backstory on these characters. If it's not in the Pensieve and has not been introduced earlier, it's not important, in her view. I also believe that anything in the Pensieve scene in "The Prince's Tale" that conflicts with previous canon should supersede that canon, especially opinions expressed by characters (whether Harry, Lupin, Black, or Snape himself). Prep0strus: I don't believe Sirius made up his mind as an 11 year old on the train, but I don't believe what happened on the train was all that bad ? a poster made a point a while back that it was different students expressing opinions on the houses, and based on this they all disliked each other ? never commenting on clothes or physical appearance. Carol: Exactly. Severus believed that Slytherin was the house for brains, James that Gryffindor was the house of chivalry (though his behavior was anything but chivalrous). Sirius knew only that his family had been in Slytherin and that James disliked Slytherin and he wanted to be friends with James. He says that maybe he'll break tradition. Then James trips Severus and Sirius (apparently) calls him Snivellus for no cause other than his desire to be in a house that James doesn't like. If physical appearance came into it, we don't see it, but the narrator does note (from Harry's pov) that James looked well cared for and Severus didn't. The whole scene is very much on the same level as Harry's first and second encounters with Draco--eleven-year-olds forming judgments and holding prejudices based on the expectations of their parents, and, in Sirius's case, a conflict between his family's views and those of his new friend. You may think that he hasn't yet made up his mind, but it's pretty clear to me that he's rejected Slytherin (and a kid he doesn't even know who wants to be in it) based solely on his desire to remain on good terms with James. Otherwise, the sneer at Severus for having neither brains nor brawn (it's obvious he's not brawny, but neither is Sirius or James, and he has no idea of Severus's intelligence, which is quite the match of his) and the nasty nickname Snivellus (a distortion of Severus's name with no other basis) are inexplicable, as is his approval of James tripping Severus for no reason. Prep0strus: And I've said many times I believe they knew what was going on in the world. Carol response: You may believe that, but as Hermione says of Crumple-Horned Snorkacks, where's the evidence? It's not in the Pensieve scene or anywhere else in canon. Possibly the kids listen to the wizarding wireless or the Daily Prophet, but we know that those sources of information are often controlled by the MoM. We know how reluctant Fudge et al. were to admit that Voldemort was back, to the point of officially denying it for a year. Perhaps they were just as reluctant to admit that this new Dark Wizard, who had just started his campaign of murder and terror, was a real threat. Most people in the WW didn't know that Voldemort had been Tom Riddle. The Blacks until much later (at least until Regulus was sixteen and joined the DEs and maybe until his death at seventeen--at this time, he's about eight) thought that Voldemort had the right idea. That would be what Sirius heard at home, a view that his younger brother never questioned. Perhaps James is the first person he knows who questioned it unless cousin Andromeda had already married a Muggle-born and been burned off the family tree). But how, exactly, are kids whose parents have access to only one not wholly reliable newspaper and perhaps a bit of equally unreliable news on the wizarding wireless supposed to know exactly what's going on? Both would be exposed primarily, if not solely, to their parents' views (along with Cissy's or Bella's if they came to dinner, in Sirius's case). And what exactly *was* going on? Lucius Malfoy was still a prefect at Hogwarts and probably not yet a Death Eater. Only Tom Riddle's original school friends and perhaps a few of their older sons would have yet been recruited. The Order of the Phoenix most likely had not yet been created to fight Voldemort. MWPP and Lily were eleven years old. The conversation on the train between James, Sirius, Severus, and Lily indicates no political awareness whatever, only James's desire to be in the house his father has taught him is for "the brave at heart" and Severus's desire to be in the house that his mother has taught him is for "brains." I think we glimpse their respective views of themselves as well, certainly of their values. Prep0strus: > To some small extent, I get why people identify with Sev over the Marauders ? he was poor and they were rich. James was an athlete, and it is described that they might be more popular (though it's hard to say what popularity means when Sev has his own Young Death Eater group). Carol responds: It's more than that. Snape was right about James. He was arrogant. And worse than arrogant, he was a bully who misjudged Severus from the moment Severus expressed a desire to be in Slytherin (a house that he mistakenly thought that Lily could be in, too). And Sirius joins with him in his prejudice, calling Severus unearned nicknames and rejecting his parents's house at least in part because of James. Young Severus, though he has his flaws, is primarily a sympathetic figure, a plant left in the dark with only one real friend. James's "popularity," which we can only judge from the reactions of some but not all of the kids in SWM, seems to be based in part on his Quidditch abilities (which would endear him to fellow Gryffindors but no one else) and in part on his outgoing personality (he's not handsome like Sirius despite repeated assertions by some posters to the contrary), but could owe something to the fear of being hexed in the hallways or general antipathy toward Slytherin by late in their fifth year (by which time, unlike the eleven-year-olds on the train, they probably do have a fairly clear idea of what's going on in the outside world. Lupin's assertion that James and Sirius were "the best at everything they did" is simply not true. Both Lily and Severus were better than they were at Potions and Severus was better at DADA (and inventing hexes and charms). Sirius and James were better at Transfiguration (motivated at first, no doubt, by their desire to become Animagi). There's no indication that Sirius was good at Quidditch, or at anything else except being handsome. But, yes. Sirius and James had all the advantages--wealth and looks in Sirius's case, wealth and loving parents and Quidditch talent in James's. Severus had none of those things, only a brilliant mind and precocious talent appreciated (only) by his fellow Slytherins (including, apparently, the much older Lucius Malfoy) and one friend, a girl sorted into a different--and rival--house. It was the worst possible time to be sorted into Slytherin, just as Voldemort was coming into power and all the eager young Slytherins were watching him rise, perhaps collecting press clippings like Regulus Black. Had Severus been born ten years earlier or ten years later, he might well have escaped Voldemort's influence. Instead, he finished school at a time when Voldie seemed to be winning, and, having lost Lily to the hated James, he must have thought there was no choice but to join his friends Avery and Mulciber and his former mentor, Lucius Malfoy (judging from Black's "lapdog" reference and Malfoy's welcome of the lonely little half-blood into his new house). Yes, he chose wrongly. Yes, he espoused the wrong values. Yes, he did a terrible thing in revealing the Prophecy to Voldemort. Yes, his motive in wanting to save her and not her hated husband or their son who was nothing to him was selfish. Yes, he viewed Harry through a distorted lens (but Sirius also saw him as James reborn). Yes, he was sarcastic bitter and unfair and unable to let go of the past (but neither could Sirius). But his anguished remorse over Lily's death and his dedication of his life to protecting her son and defeating Voldemort at great personal risk through a uniquely Slytherin blend of deception and courage is material for tragedy. His story, from the eavesdropping incident to his dying message to Harry is tied to Harry's in a way that no other character's is, his redemption is tied to Harry's victory, and we are meant to see Harry's gesture in naming his second son Albus Severus as exactly the right thing to do. Carol, wishing that Dumbledore had taken the time to nourish Severus's talents and steer him in the right direction (but then there'd have been no story) From juli17 at aol.com Mon Sep 3 21:45:18 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 21:45:18 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic / Choices for eleven year olds/ Lily knew about werewolf or not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176643 Alla wrote: Alla: > We keep talking about how horrible it is to show that the eleven > year olds are horrible, etc, but are we sure that this is what JKR > meant to show? Ugh, bear with me please. There is a great Russian > fantasy/ sf writer Sergey Lukianenko ( he wrote Night watch book, > and the movie was shown in some US theaters too). His early stories > were pretty much all about kids. I thought psychologically they were > fascinating, absolutely fascinating. I mean, he has psychiatrist > background, so he knows his stuff. Anyways, you would be amazed at > the horrible things some kids do in his stories. They often take > place during some sort of galactic wars or other extreme situations ? > betrayal, murder, etc, etc. And guess what, they often do die for > that or have other bad things happened to them > > So, I sincerely doubt that Lukianenko meant to show that those kids > have no salvation, you know? I think he writes stories where kids > are sort of meant to be looked as adults, you know? Julie: I do understand what you're saying, and his stories stem from a reality in many societies, especially third world societies, where children *are* looked at and treated as adults. Childhood isn't a guarantee in societies broken by strife and war. Just look at the boy soldiers in Africa who were unwillingly conscripted but who for the most part took easily to rape and murder as it meant their survival. (In which they are no different than the many apparently "decent" German adults were able to dismiss any conscience and take part in the Nazi regime, except that as children they are more vulnerable to indoctrination.) And certainly there are 11 year olds who are already "evil," who like Tom Riddle are sociopathic and without conscience (whether that comes from genetics, non-nurturing environment, or more likely some incalculable interaction between both, I don't know). It's not unheard of for adoptive parents of non-babies to want to "return" the child based on the contention that the child is unsalvagable, even because they fear the child, even at 7 or 8, will harm or kill them. But it can't be that fully a quarter of the children in a society are in this group, and clearly they are not. Tom Riddle was hopeless, but both Snape and Regulus were able to change, and we saw them change as adults. And I have to wonder, if it was possible for them at that point, how much *more* possible would it have been for them as young children, and how much more could they--and society--have gained by that early change, if someone--anyone had given them the opportunity or encouragement to make that change? The fact is, it's really not about the children for me. Sure some of them will be lost causes. But many of them are not, and it seems like it should be incumbent on the adults around them to make some effort to "save" them. And I know some say it is the family that is primarily responsible, but in a boarding school isn't the *school* the family? Aren't the teachers and headmaster in effect the substitute parents, responsible for their charges' welfare, not only the physical welfare but the emotional welfare? Aren't they in effect the ones who now have the primary task of shaping these children's futures? This is probably the main reason I can't see Dumbledore as the epitome of goodness. Mother Teresa, or even the late Princess Diana, are far closer to that in their willingness to intervene, in their genuine desire to help any and all children they can, regardless of said child's sterlingness of character or lack thereof, and regardless of their own catalogue of human faults. It is intent as well as action that indicates a person's "goodness" to me, and I don't think in intent or in action Dumbledore was really all that good (and he even admits Harry is a better man than he is). In the end, the HP books reflect much more of JKR's political than moral beliefs, I think. Dumbledore (i.e., JKR I'm assuming) believes in what is basically a Liberatarian style of government and schooling (sorry, I don't know the equivalent British term, though some have also suggested something akin to anarchy). It is all incumbent on the individual, in this case adult or child, to make his/her choices, and society has no responsibility at all. WW society provides no resources that we see for public assistance. There are no counselling services, not even at school, no assistance for the destitute or the abused, etc, etc. The most we see is warehousing for those who cannot function meaningfully as part of society, and are either incarcerated at Azkaban, or in the St Mungo's ward for the Insane. (I admit I find this position a bit ironic for JKR, who after all wrote the first book that would eventually make her one of the richest women in the world while ON public assistance.) Sorry, I realize I've gone off on a tangent. And I will state here that I hold very Democratic views (referring again to the American political system), and I believe society does have some responsibility toward its citizens-- all of them--and that it takes a "village" to raise a child, if one wants that child to be a productive member of society. Leaving each person to their own "choices" no matter how much those choices may be limited by their genetics or their upbringing, seems to be ultimately detrimental to society. But that is only my opinion! In closing I guess what I wanted to see was some sort of realization, if not within the WW as a whole at least at Hogwarts, that the marginalization of Slytherin House and the complete lack of effort toward any reconciliation was *part* of the problem. And it seemed to me that this WAS being very clearly shown in the earlier books as part of the problem, so I was taken aback when it was a total non-issue in DH. Either I saw what wasn't there, or it was there and JKR didn't see it herself as she wrote it (I.e., she actually believes it is all about getting rid of the evil cancer in society rather than making an effort to fix it, which is really just putting it into remission-- and she did make that comment about having to put up with the bad people in society. I.e., forget the adage "We will never let the Holocaust happen again" because there will always be another Hitler around the corner, and we can't-- thus shouldn't--even try to prevent it). Julie, who again notes that all of the above is personal interpretation and opinion... From prep0strus at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 22:12:20 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:12:20 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176644 > Carol: > Exactly. Severus believed that Slytherin was the house for brains, > James that Gryffindor was the house of chivalry (though his behavior > was anything but chivalrous). Sirius knew only that his family had > been in Slytherin and that James disliked Slytherin and he wanted to > be friends with James. He says that maybe he'll break tradition. Then > James trips Severus and Sirius (apparently) calls him Snivellus for no > cause other than his desire to be in a house that James doesn't like. Prep0strus: And here is where your opinions and conjecture come into play. You believe he is doing it solely for that reason, while many posters have previously stated examples of why they feel his choice may be influenced by the upbringing he had, from disagreeing with his parents statements, from hearing things from his cousin, or observing things in the world. these opinions are no less valid. We're not even sure he's the one who says it. Carol: > If physical appearance came into it, we don't see it, but the narrator > does note (from Harry's pov) that James looked well cared for and > Severus didn't. The whole scene is very much on the same level as > Harry's first and second encounters with Draco--eleven-year-olds > forming judgments and holding prejudices based on the expectations of > their parents, and, in Sirius's case, a conflict between his family's > views and those of his new friend. You may think that he hasn't yet > made up his mind, but it's pretty clear to me that he's rejected > Slytherin (and a kid he doesn't even know who wants to be in it) based > solely on his desire to remain on good terms with James. Otherwise, > the sneer at Severus for having neither brains nor brawn (it's obvious > he's not brawny, but neither is Sirius or James, and he has no idea of > Severus's intelligence, which is quite the match of his) and the nasty > nickname Snivellus (a distortion of Severus's name with no other > basis) are inexplicable, as is his approval of James tripping Severus > for no reason. Prep0strus: Again, only your opinion. We don't know that he's made up his mind to reject Slytherin, we don't know that if he has the reason is James, or only James. We don't know how the hat works, or how much of it is based on choice, and we don't know what is in these boys' heads. Your opinion is certainly valid, and makes sense, but it is not my opinion, nor the opinion of other posters, who can look at the same presented information and see it quite differently. > Prep0strus: > And I've said many times I believe they knew what was going on in > the world. > > Carol response: > You may believe that, but as Hermione says of Crumple-Horned > Snorkacks, where's the evidence? Prep0strus: I don't have evidence. I believe it based on common sense and based on what we see in harry's generation. Those kids know what went on in their past. They are aware of prisoners in azkaban. they've heard of Sirius black, they know of harry potter. they know of accused death eaters, and they know of slytherin. in the pensieve, we see a few years after the train lily making direct comment on what is going on in the world. No, I do not have a scene where all the Marauders and Snape and Lucius sit around and talk about what's going on in world politics. But I do not think that my view of it is preposterous or not based on canon. > Carol responds: > It's more than that. Snape was right about James. He was arrogant. And > worse than arrogant, he was a bully who misjudged Severus from the > moment Severus expressed a desire to be in Slytherin (a house that he > mistakenly thought that Lily could be in, too). And Sirius joins with > him in his prejudice, calling Severus unearned nicknames and rejecting > his parents's house at least in part because of James. Young Severus, > though he has his flaws, is primarily a sympathetic figure, a plant > left in the dark with only one real friend. > Prep0strus: And this, again, is your opinion. You think Snape was right about James, but I believe that James was right about Slytherin. They were evil, they were dark, and they were about to try to take over the world. You still blame Sirius for a nickname that we don't know came from him (not that it matters whether it came from James or Sirius). You still focus primarily on the bullying aspects of the Marauders and not on the park arts practicing and looking ahead to voldemorte aspects of the slytherins. it's choice and opinion - what you're stating is no more canon fact that what those of us who disagree with you believe. That includes how sympathetic Severus is. He must be, to you, and many others, but I don't find him all that sympathetic. 'only one real friend', which discounts every slytherin who apparently took him in as their own, who exerted great influence on him. that one friend was more than harry ever had before getting to school. probably more than neville had the first 4 years of school. I know Snape is sympathetic to many people, but he's not to me. The Snape discussion has been gone over again and again. I rarely think of something new to say, and rarely read something new about it. I've been posting a little more about Slytherins in general. Opinions won't really change about Snape. I stand firmly in the SnapeMeh camp, because I just don't care. he doesn't interest me a great deal as a character, i find him repulsive as a person, and the vehement defense and adulation of him baffle me. I often find myself drawn in because my sympathies do like with the Marauders, and I find certain readings of a very sympathetic and likeable Snape silly, but really, my feelings toward him are more of boredom and disdain. There's no way to 'prove' either opinion, no matter how detailed the reading of the text. ~Prep0strus, who thinks it would be nice if the whole wizarding world and simply abolished Slytherin, made socially taboo their views, and made the houses based on traits of equal merit and no moral connotations. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 22:23:36 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:23:36 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176645 > Carol: > > Well, I don't agree with you about the revenge theme, but I'm just as > confused as you are regarding Dark magic in the series and, like you, > still trying to explore the concept. > Where we're running into trouble (or confusion) is the hexes and > jinxes and so forth, because if they're Dark, then the Marauders are > hypocrites as well as bullies. I'm perfectly comfortable in believing > that they're both. (I noted how quickly and violently Lupin jumped on > the anti-Snape bandwagon. Too bad he never learned *why* Snape cast > Sectumsempra in in DH.) lizzyben: That's really my focus here: the rampant hypocrisy. The Mauraders insist that they *hate* the Dark Arts, all while using hexes & curses against Snape & others. And they feel noble about this because they are punishing Snape for being into the Dark Arts. Weird. Harry & co are fighting against the Dark Arts, but still use hexes, jinxes and Unforgiveable Curses. Sometimes to fight evil, sometimes just to get back at people who annoy them (Ginny, I'm looking at you). It reminds me of that original hypocrite - one Barty Crouch Sr. "And I trust you remember the many proofs I have given, over a long career, that I despise and detest the Dark Arts and those who practice them?" Mr. Crouch shouted, his eyes bulging again." Of course, Crouch authorized his Aurors to use Unforgiveable Curses (the darkest magic) to torture & kill, he sprung a fanatical Death Eater from Azkaban, and he personally used the Imperius Curse against his son for ten years. Oh, but Crouch just *hates* the Dark Arts, and those who practice them. *eye roll* And that's what projection's all about. The one difference is that the text highlights Crouch's hypocrisy & projection w/regard to his own use of dark magic. When it comes to the good guys, the text works hard to hide the same dynamic - but it's still there. That's what's fascinating. "Dark Magic" becomes a code word for scapegoating & projection by the Gryffindors as their own violent/vengeful use of magic is projected onto their Slytherin scapegoats. Carol: At any rate, as I keep saying, most of > Teen!Snape's hexes are no darker than those that Harry and Draco > routinely use against each other in the corridors. And I certainly > don't agree that Gryffindor = good. There's nothing admirable about > MWPP in SWM; young Severus is a much more sympathetic character even > when he's torn between Lily and the young DE wannabes, Avery and > Mulciber. lizzyben: Here I disagree. When Lily says that the Marauders don't use dark magic, IMO we're expected to agree, not to think that she's being hypocritical. We're supposed to see Snape's (undefined) defense of Dark Magic as a slide towards evil & Death Eater-dom. And we're supposed to believe that what Snape's Slytherin friends are doing is *evil*, while the Marauders are just high-spirited pranksters. Finally, we're assured that James just *hated* the Dark Arts. And that's what we're told. But that's not what we're *shown* - instead, we *see* the Gryffindor good guys using curses, jinxes & other dark magic to torment Snape. We see James using the same humiliating tactics that a Death Eater used against Mrs. Roberts. We see detention records of them swelling another student's head to twice its size. We see them using (and misusing) restricted magic. At the same time, we never see any evidence that young!Snape used magic to bully or hurt people. There's a huge dichotomy between what we are told (Slytherins as bullies & practitioners of Dark Magic), and what we are actually shown (GRYFFINDORS bullying & using Dark Magic). It doesn't make sense, and I love that it doesn't make sense. Because it means that, far from a subversive reading, Slytherins-as-scapegoats is what is actually going on here. Carol: (And JKR cared enough about him to give him a detailed > backstory and a redemption scene, complete with spectacular magic from > a dying but determined man.) lizzyben: And leave him in the Shrieking Shack, killed by a symbol of his own House. (unwanted, stuffed out of sight...) Snape's redemption is somewhat less clear than it might have been. Carol: As for other "ungood" Gryffindors, > Wormtail is the most cowardly character in the series, not to mention > one of the most contemptible, selling his friends to Voldemort in > exchange for his flea-bitten skin. Romilda Vane and Cormac McLaggen > won't win any prizes for courage or loyalty or any other virtue, > either 9though granted we don't see them in DH). lizzyben: Any ambiguity created in HBP evaporated in DH, so I'm not sure we can extrapolate much there. And it's notable that it's easier to come up with "ungood" Gryffindors than it is to come up w/"good" Slytherins. In Harry's own generation, there's not a one. (Though Draco might get a tolerable rating). > Carol: > Maybe, but I don't think so. Slytherin House wasn't created by > Hogwarts (as opposed to JKR, whose intentions I don't want to guess) > as the house of evil. It was created as the house Salazar Slytherin > created for "pure-blood wizards of great cunning, just like him" at a > time when Muggles were burning witches and he had at least some > justification for looking at Muggle-borns with suspicion. (Placing a > Basilisk in the CoS was, of course, going too far.) But there's no > indication that early Slytherins were particularly evil or motivated > by what posters insist on calling "racism," a concept that didn't even > exist until the twentieth century. lizzyben: This is coming from a big Slytherin defender here - Yes, I believe JKR created Slytherin as the House of Evil. I agree w/Prepostrus- everything, everything JKR associated w/Slytherin is bad & negative. JKR also associates "anti-Muggle" & "pure-blood" prejudice w/real-world bigotry (via over-the-top Nazi & Klu Klux Klan references). That's the connection to racism. And then she creates a house whose *founder* insisted on accepting only those "whose blood is purest", and used a monster to kill Muggle-borns. No, I think it's safe to say that Slytherin was bad from the get-go. Slytherin is evil, so they are also associated w/"Dark Magic" as another sign of their evilness. The houses came first, the bad magic came later. That's why there's no real clear boundaries of what constitutes "Dark Magic" - it's just what the Bad People (read Slytherins) do. Carol: The one Slytherin we see from that > early era, the Bloody Baron, was motivated to commit a murder/suicide > by unrequited love and spent the next thousand years or so as a ghost > wearing chains to symbolize his repentance. (BTW, the BB is surely a > foil to SS, who wanted the woman he loved to live and chose *not* to > commit suicide but to show his remorse for his role in her death in a > much more constructive way.) lizzyben: Yes, the mascot of Slytherin House is a murderer. This shows Slytherins aren't bad because...? I mean, their own ghost is "bad" - a symbol of obsessive love, yet! I could go on a tangent here about the implied connections between love, water emotions & Slytherins as bad, but I won't. :) Carol: It seems to me that the > corruption of Slytherin House into a breeding ground for Dark Wizards, > or at least, potential DEs, begins with the admission of Tom Riddle, > who corrupted some of his (male) housemates and their children (mostly > sons) into becoming first- and second-generation Death Eaters. But > only one student of Harry's generation, Draco, actually becomes a DE > AFAWK, and he regrets that choice. (Two others, Crabbe and Goyle, are > corrupted. Perhaps Goyle is redeemable by his stupidity and loyalty to > Draco; Crabbe, of course, is burned by his own Fiendfyre.) lizzyben: Slytherin started out corrupted. I hate that message as much as anyone, but that's what JKR did here. Slytherin himself was a "Dark Wizard", anti-muggle, pro-deadly monster. It's a breeding ground for bad guys because the founder was a bad guy. The contrast between Slytherin and Gryffindor as the noble "defender of Muggle rights" is entirely intentional. Slytherins are the scum of the earth, the racists, the thugs, the sneaky, the mean, the damned - they are "beyond our help", and the best thing we can do is stuff them in the dungeons where they can't contaminate the rest of us. These are the "bad children", who were born bad, and cannot change. Therefore, DD doesn't need to feel guilty about sorting these children to a house of racists & horrible people - that's where they belong. That's the overt message, and the only way (IMO) we can make sense of the fact that the House still exists unchanged at the end of the series. There is no help possible - they are predestined to be the way they are. The overt message is strict, Calvinist, and pitiless. Slytherins *are* the unworthy, and deserve what they get. > Lizzyben: > "Dark Magic" is seen as evil, so Slytherins are associated w/"Dark > Magic". It's all a part of making sure this group is over-the-top BAD > & hate-able. And distinguishing them from the GOOD, courageous & > noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors. > > Carol: (BTW, a Slytherin makes a Gryffindors eyebrows grow > down to her feet, but it's a Gryffindor who gives Pansy Parkinson > antlers. For a school that doesn't teach Dark magic, Hogwarts has > some, erm, interesting stuff going on in its corridors. And which is > darker, Serpensortia (easily "sorted out" with Snape's Evanesco) or > Harry's hex that gives Goyle boils (intended for Draco)? Isn't the > Potter calling the kettle "black" here? lizzyben: Exactly. Scapegoating & projection are all about the pot calling the kettle black. Carol: > Which "good, courageous, noble, tolerant, superior Gryffindors" are > you referring to? The Gryffindors I know may be courageous, but > they're rule breakers, often rude or tactless, sometimes arrogant, and > intolerant of any House except their own most of the time. lizzyben: That's their self-image, and (IMO) how JKR has defined the House. You must be *worthy* to be a Gryfindor - they are the house of the good, the noble, the brave, the heroes. Of course they're intolerant of other Houses; they are the Elect, and better than the other houses. I don't like most of them either, though. Individual Slytherins may have virtues, but their House does not. Whereas Gryffindor virtues are extolled throughout the text. Carol: > Which brings me back to Slytherin and the Dark Arts. Despite an > occasional reference to Dark Arts in association with Slytherin, we > don't really *see* that association except in connection with > Healer!Snape, who applies his knowledge of the Dark Arts to saving the > lives of people who have been attacked by Dark magic (or trying to do > so). lizzyben: The two are connected from the first novel, and contrasted w/Gryffindors. In the first chapter, McGonegal praises DD for being too noble to use dark magic in the fight against LV. In the first conversation w/Hagrid, Harry is told "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." Slytherin = bad wizards. It's symbol is the serpent - which we are told in GOF are "often used in the worst kinds of Dark Magic, and are historically associated with evildoers." Slytherin=Dark Magic=evil. That connection is made from the beginning, and hammered in in every subsequent book. Carol: > Where else do we see Dark magic, not counting Dementors and Inferi? lizzyben: As zgimigus points out, we see Dark magic in every DADA class. To learn the defense, students must know the spell that they are repelling. And in these classes, every kind of jinx, hex & curse is defined as dark magic. The counter-jinxes & shield spells are DADA magic. Yet somehow, mysteriously, we don't notice that. We don't think that Harry & co. are using dark magic when they hex people, even though that's exactly what they learned in DADA class. So readers are *shocked* when Harry uses an Unforgiveable Curse, because we somehow overlooked that he's been using dark magic all along. And IMO, it's because "dark magic" has so successfully been associated w/the evil "other" Slytherins that we can't even conceive of "our side" using it - even though they totally are. The use of "Dark Magic" has been so completely projected onto Slytherins that the Gryffindors, and the readers, can't even perceive the truth about their own actions anymore. It's a *perfect* example of how scapegoating works. Carol: > The first place we see anything associated with it is Borgin and > Burkes, a shop that sells Dark artifacts first mentioned in CoS, and > in more general terms, in Knockturn Alley itself. So maybe that's > where we should look. What distinguishes Knockturn Alley from Diagon > Alley and reputable magical merchants from disreputable ones? lizzyben: The presence of Slytherins? Carol: > Cursed objects, Hands of Glory, and poisons, to begin with--as opposed to > wands, brooms, robes, and books in Diagon Alley. Admittedly, some of > the items sold in Diagon Alley, especially potion ingredients such as > beetle eyes, seem rather sinister. > Yes, we see Lucius Malfoy in Borgin and Burkes getting rid of > suspicious artifacts, but he's a Death Eater, so it's no surprise that > he and his wife are "bad, Dark wizards" as well in Dobby's words. Are > we getting any closer? Or is "Dark" still just a label placed on > Slytherins as "Other"? lizzyben: I'm going to vote for option B - "Dark" is just a label placed on Slytherins as the "other". I can't think of another fantasy novel where "Dark Magic" is as totally vague as it is here, & where the line between "good" & "bad" magic is as changing & contradictory as it is here. In terms of the overt message, the only consistent definition is that "Dark Magic" is associated w/Slytherin House, Death Eaters, and Bad People in general. In reality, it seems like both sides, both Houses, have been using dark (violent) magic all along. But we're not supposed to notice this, because we're told that dark magic is just something those "other," AWFUL PEOPLE use. So the White Hats can use dark magic to punish the Black Hats for using dark magic, and not see any hypocrisy there at all. By projecting evil "dark magic" onto the other, the White Hats can feel free to use violent magic for revenge, payback, & overall nastiness, yet still not feel that this tarnishes their goodness in any way. Because *we* don't use dark magic - that's what Slytherins do! Even when they're using the same exact spells. The hypocrisy is waist-high & pervasive. lizzyben From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 3 22:57:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 03 Sep 2007 22:57:06 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176646 Magpie wrote: > > Harry's line to AS to me says that he loves his son no matter what house he's in. He says nothing particularly positive about Slytherin the house--nor can he, because the story didn't give him anything positive to say. The most he can say is that there have historically been some Slytherins who are impressive, one of whom Harry has named his child after for some reason. Carol responds: For some reason? I thought that it was clearly to honor the courage of a man he had misunderstood and wrongly hated, a man who died providing Harry with the information he needed to defeat Voldemort. And surely, having impressive Slytherins to honor is a big step forward for Slytherin House (especially if Snape gets a portrait in the headmaster's office and a posthumous Order of Merlin First Class prominently displayed in the trophy room). Sure, the house still needs some work (let's hope that passwords like "pure-blood" are now magically prohibited), but at least it's no longer the house of budding Death Eaters. In fact, aside from Draco (and possibly Crabbe and Goyle) the last DE it produced was probably another improbable hero, Regulus Black. If no Slytherin kids fought against Voldemort, at least none fought *for* him (setting aside Crabbe's attempt to capture or kill Harry and whatever Draco was trying to do--stop him, it seemed to me). And that's Pansy Parkinson's fault for speaking up and making McGonagall and the other students assume that any Slytherin who remained behind must be loyal to Voldemort. Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw had no part in the first Order, IIRC, and only a small part (Tonks as Hufflepuff accoridng to an interview) in the second one, but they moved from absolute neutrality to a partial alliance with those Gryffindors who supported Harry in OoP through DH. (As of DH, we're looking only at seventh years, sixth years old enough to fight, and former Gryffindors who are of age. None of the younger kids from any houses fight except for Colin Creevey, who must be nearly seventeen in any case and shouldn't even be there as he's a Muggle-born. That's about ten seventh-year Slytherins and maybe seven or eight sixth-year Slytherins who could have joined the fight. Of those, we can account for three (Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle). The others seem to have obeyed McGonagall and left the school with the younger students from all the houses and those older Gryffindors, Ravenclaws, and Hufflepuffs who didn't want to fight (admittedly, a small number, perhaps ten or fifteen altogether. At any rate, the forced neutrality of the older Slytherins is not a legitimate basis for judging them as evil. (We might judge Zacharias Smith, a Hufflepuff DA who ran like a coward rather harshly, but we didn't see, say, Theo Nott or Blaise Zabini engaging in similar behavior. And, wholly irrelevantly, I don't blame Zacharias for not wanting to join "friends" who hit him with bat-bogey hexes. Anyone besides me think that Ginny lost the DA an ally with her behavior in HBP?) Similarly, the neutrality of the Malfoys (Voldemort's own fault for his abuse of them) is at least a step up from their loyal support of Voldemort before Lucius's fall from grace. Sorry--carried away by my thoughts here. I realize that much of what I've written doesn't follow from Harry's naming his son Albus Severus, but I was remembering points you made in earlier posts. > Magpie: >Having Harry say in a scene from 19 years later, in response to his children telling us that Slytherin is *still the bad house in their generation* that his son shouldn't worry about being a Slytherin because his parents love him no matter what, and that he is named after a Slytherin who was brave (the quality of Gryffindor), but if he's really worried he can just tell the hat he doesn't want Slytherin just as Harry himself has been praised for doing throughout the story says *something* to me, it just doesn't say Slytherin and Gryffindor are on their way to uniting. I still so no reason on earth any good person in this universe would *want* to be in Slytherin. Carol: But Harry *doesn't* say or even imply that Slytherin is "still the bad house in their generation." All we have is an older brother teasing a younger one about being in a rival house. Maybe James II doesn't think that teasing his brother about being in Ravenclaw (a house for wit or intelligence) or Hufflepuff (a house for loyalty or hard work) would have the same effect. And who knows how much little Albus knows about the houses' history? All he knows is that dad was a Gryffindor, Mum was a Gryffindor, Uncle Ron and Aunt Hermione were Gryffindors, Uncle Bill and Uncle George, and heck, even Uncle Percy and the Uncle Fred he never knew were Gryffindors--everyone he knows (even Teddy Lupin?) was sorted into Gryffindor, and he's probably heard a lot about how important it is to beat Slytherin at Quidditch. But Ron's teasing of Rose about marrying a pure-blood probably goes over his head. In any case, being a pure-blood can't be a criterion for being in Slytherin since both Tom Riddle and Severus Snape were half-bloods (as was Harry, who could have been placed there). It seems to me that the teasing is just a good-natured remnant of the old prejudice and hatred that we saw in Harry's generation and his father's. If Harry feared that his son would learn blood prejudice or Dark magic in Slytherin, surely he would not say, "We'll love you no matter what house you're in." he would say instead, "Just tell the Sorting Hat 'not Slytherin' and it won't put you there." Magpie: > Within the last book Slytherin honestly became more like background word-building to me. The real story was about Harry. Slytherin didn't matter. Carol responds: Ah. the heart of the matter. First, in HBP, we finally see Slytherins and former Slytherins as people--Snape concerned about Draco, Narcissa fearing for her son, Draco learning that being a DE has nothing to do with "glory" and everything to do with pain and fear, and even Bellatrix (briefly) showing affection and concern for her sister. We see Draco lowering his wand a fraction of an inch, unwilling or unable to kill a helpless old man regardless of the threat of his own and his family's death. In DH, we see the Malfoys' predicament expanded upon, with Draco's hesitation and fear and distaste for DE life contrasted with his father's willingness to hand Harry over to get his old position under Voldemort back. We get Snape's backstory and his redemption and Regulus's as well. Slytherin has a face, and it's not the face we--and Harry--thought it was. Look at Harry's assumption about Regulus ("'And he made you drink the potion?' said Harry, disgusted," DH Am. ed. 196) contrasted with the reality of Regulus's terrible sacrifice. Regulus was a Slytherin and a DE and Sirius thought he was an idiot; therefore, he must be evil, an abuser of house-elves like Voldemort and Lucius Malfoy. Wrong. Regulus gave his life to avenge Kreacher and steal Voldemort's Horcrux. It's his Gryffindor brother, Sirius, Harry's beloved godfather, who has treated Kreacher like scum and called him a "little toerag." Not comparable, admittedly, to beating him or making him drink poison, but in this instance, it's the seventeen-year-old Slytherin Death Eater whose a better man than his grown-up Gryffindor brother. By the same token, Harry learns to feel mercy and compassion for Draco, saving him and Goyle from the Fiendfyre cast by their corrupted friend, Crabbe. He learns empathy and respect for the teacher and protector he's hated for seven years and has sought revenge against since Dumbledore's death. Thanks to "The Prince's Tale," in particular, Dumbledore's Slytherin ally, the former Death Eater who loved Harry's mother and risked everything--life, career, reputation-- for Dumbledore, finally becomes a person whom Harry can understand and empathize with--too late for any kind of truce between them, but not too late for Harry to publicly vindicate Snape and reveal him as he was to Voldemort, who trusted and yet murdered him. Harry is the pov character. From the very first book, he sees Slytherin as bad and Snape as evil. The reader with an eye on Snape can read between the lines in those books and suspect that Harry is wrong, but aside from learning about the so-called Prank in PoA, we get few glimpses of the real Snape until OoP, and then HBP tries to pull the wool over our eyes so that, like Harry, we see Snape as a traitor and a murderer. But Harry has slowly become less (figuratively) myopic, less self-centered (like James, whose circle included only three friends, Harry trusts almost no one outside his even smaller circle). His understanding extends first to the outsiders Neville and Luna (not even in his House or his year), then to Draco, and finally, most important, to Snape. So, yes, it's Harry's story. It's *his* perception of Slytherin (and Snape and Draco) that we've been seeing all this time. And finally, at the end of DH, having seen Snape's memories and the willingness of Narcissa Malfoy to lie to Voldemort for her son and Draco's own disillusionment with the DE life and attempts to keep Crabbe from killing him, he has reached a point where it's okay for his son to be Sorted into Slytherin. Draco is not his friend, but he is not his enemy, either. It's okay for Albus Severus to be friends with Scorpius (and for Ron's daughter Rose to date him some day). And Severus Snape, the ultimate Slytherin, the man he hated and wanted revenge against, is in Harry's mind a hero worthy of naming his son after, a headmaster of Hogwarts who was probably the bravest man Harry ever met. What are we supposed to think about Slytherin at this point? Exactly what Harry thinks. His point of view, which JKR (generally) uses for her third-person narrator, finally matches that of the author herself. The too-often unreliable narrator is now reliable. It's okay to be in Slytherin, and Severus Snape, the Slytherin hero, is worthy of emulation. (Let's hope that Albus Severus can be more openly heroic, however.) Carol, who thinks that Harry's point of view is the key to why Slytherin *appeared* to be unredeemable but turns out to be far otherwise in DH From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 00:57:18 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 00:57:18 -0000 Subject: Wandlore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176647 claire_elise2003 wrote: > > Ollivander tells Harry that when a wizard disarms another (or otherwise wins his wand by > force), the wand will usually recognise the new master, depending though on the wand > itself. Obviously this is crucial in the case of the Elder Wand and Draco's wand. But, > having just reread the series, I have lost count of the number of times Harry and co are > disarmed (or disarm others), either using Expelliarmus, or otherwise. Why did Harry's > wand continue to work for him when it had previously been won from him by force? Niru: I think that intention matters a great deal when one wizard/witch disarms/otherwise defeats another. Or as Ollivander would say, "The manner of taking matters." During the practice sessions of the DA, the members were simply taking it in turns to disarm each other. The intention was to learn to do the spell properly and not to actually disarm their partners with a view to finishing them off when they were wandless. Plus how many people did we see who actually tried to actively resist being disarmed? This wasn't a duel. The intention was simply to learn. Weighing into this debate is also the all-important fact that the wand chooses the wizard. As Ollivander says, it is not always clear why. But in general it is a mutual quest for experience. The wizard learns from the wand and the wand from the wizard. Therefore, while a wizard can use any wand, the best results will come only when the wizard and wand resonate, only when they complete each other. Why a particular wand should resonate with a particular witch or wizard is far more obscure. Maybe it does come down to the mutual quest for experience. Why, for that matter, do we marry certain people? Why do we fall in love with some particular person and not someone else? It is probably the same for a wand. The Elder Wand's allegiance becomes clearer when we take the above two things into consideration. The manner of taking (the intention behind it) and the wand's quest for experience. Draco Malfoy disarmed Dumbledore fully intending to kill him once he was disarmed. That he was not able to go through with the original intention is a different matter altogether. As the wizard who had wielded the wand that wrenched the Elder Wand from its previous master, Malfoy was perhaps going to enrich the Elder Wand's experience further. Or so it believed (if wands have that capability, and Ollivander certainly seems to think they do). But then Harry took Draco's hawthorn wand from him by force. Again, the intention was to definitely weaken Malfoy and give Harry the upper hand. This was no practice session. Harry was focussed on getting away. He'd have had no qualms about incapacitating Malfoy (I don't mean that he would have killed Malfoy). The hawthorn wand's allegiance transferred to Harry. And when this happened, he was also bound to get the Elder Wand's allegiance ? the hawthorn wand being the wand that had ripped the Elder Wand from its previous master. The wizard who mastered the hawthorn wand mastered the Elder Wand. JMHO. Niru From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 01:12:27 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:12:27 -0000 Subject: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176648 Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > My impression when I was initially reading the book was that the > Fidelius Charm was placed AFTER they showed up at Shell Cottage not > before. > All of this IMO sounds as if it were just happening. Bill's wearing > a traveling cloak and telling everyone that he's been moving the > family to Muriel's and is glad that Ginny's on Holiday. He notes > that the D.Es know that Ron is with Harry now, which until Malfoy > Manor they didn't. (they thought he was at the burrow with > Spattergroit. Arthur has been expecting something to happen for > months. Also if the Fidelius had been cast before then Ron > wouldn't have known how to get to Shell Cottage when he left Harry > and Hermione in the woods. Niru writes: Totally agree with Melissa here. My understanding is that they placed the Fidelius charm on Shell Cottage and on Aunty Muriel's place AFTER Harry and co. arrived at Shell Cottage. Harry was consumed with grief for Dobby and busy digging the grave and thinking. He simply did not notice Bill leaving to remove the rest of the family from The Burrow to Aunt Muriel's or Bill/Fleur/someone placing the Fidelius charm on Shell Cottage. Niru From anita_hillin at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 01:21:46 2007 From: anita_hillin at yahoo.com (AnitaKH) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:21:46 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176649 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 2, In Memoriam The chapter opens with Harry in his bedroom at Privet Drive. He is bleeding from a cut he received while cleaning out his school trunk. As he heads for the bathroom to stanch the bleeding, he breaks a teacup and saucer, apparently left outside his door. He suspects Dudley is playing a prank, but has more urgent needs. As he cleans his cut, he regrets not knowing more about healing and considers that this may be a deficiency in his Hogwarts education. He makes a mental note to ask Hermione how to heal cuts. As Harry sorts through the layers of accumulation in his trunk including his old Sneakoscope, a Support Cedric Diggory button and the RAB locket, he finds the shard of glass that cut his finger. He immediately recognizes it as a piece of the mirror Sirius had given him. The sight of the fragment brings back the bitter memories of that time, causing a surge of emotion. He stems the tide of these emotions by redoubling his efforts with the trunk. Harry takes another hour to finish sorting his trunk, leaving behind many of his Hogwarts books and his School and Quidditch robes, while taking his wand, potion-making kit, Invisibility Cloak, letters, a few books, the Marauders Map and some keepsakes, including Hagrid's photo album, the enchanted mirror shard and the RAB locket. Harry then turns to the stack of newspapers on his desk, tossing many of them and looking for a particular issue he read early in the summer. As he finds it and notes the small article that Charity Burbage had resigned from Hogwarts, he sits down to read Elphias Doge's memorial to Albus Dumbledore. Harry discovers that Elphias and Albus met on the Hogwarts train and both were likely to be outcasts at Hogwarts; Elphias due to a case of dragon pox and Albus due to his father's arrest and conviction for attacking Muggle children. Albus confirms that his father was guilty when Elphias finally asks him, but Doge asserts that Dumbledore was never anti-Muggle, citing his later "determined" efforts to support Muggle rights. Doge continues that Albus soon achieves acclaim of his own, overshadowing his father's crime by demonstrating his considerable abilities and powerful intellect. Doge reports that Dumbledore not only won every award available but was already in correspondence with some of the most notable wizards and witches of the day, including Nicolas Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Aldabert Waffling. The general presumption is that he is destined for a meteoric rise in the Ministry of Magic, although he declines the offer in later years. Three years after Dumbledore's arrival, his younger brother, Aberforth, joins him at Hogwarts'. Doge admits that they were never close, but he claims they got along as well as two such different boys could, offering an explanation for Aberforth's behavior. He then relates the death of Dumbledore's mother Kendra, depriving him of the world tour he and Elphias had planned following their graduation from Hogwarts. Doge takes his tour, which means that he had little contact with Dumbledore in the year following his mother's death. While still on his travels he learns of Ariana's death. He mentions Dumbledore's assumption of guilt in her death, but dismisses it. He notes that Dumbledore has become even more reserved and less merry than when Doge left. Doge then refers briefly to Dumbledore's long career of achievement, mentioning his discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood and his triumphant duel with Grindelwald. He speaks of Dumbledore's humanity and sympathy, willing to find value in anyone, and he describes him as neither proud nor vain. He notes that Dumbledore was working for the greater good right up until his death. Harry realizes he knew almost nothing about the personal Albus Dumbledore. He ponders the lost opportunities to ask Dumbledore about his past and feels something like regret that they focused solely on Harry's past, future and immediate plans. He asked Dumbledore only one personal question and Harry suspects he did not get an honest answer then: he saw himself in the Mirror of Erised with a pair of woolen socks. Harry then finishes cleaning and turns to the most recent Daily Prophet, which contains Betty Braithwaite's interview with Rita Skeeter, discussing her upcoming biography, "The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore". He turns to the article to read. The article begins with a description of Rita and her inviting home, followed by a gossip-filled conversation. Braithwaite notes that Rita has produced a 900-page biography just four weeks after Dumbledore's death and asks how Rita managed it. Rita replies that she is used to working against a deadline. She laughs off the Elphias Doge's criticism, referring to him as "completely gaga." Rita continues, revealing a tantalizing hint that she has a sensational source for much of the dirt she has dug up about Dumbledore and his family. She goes on to "reveal" that Dumbledore dabbled in the Dark Arts and that there were massive skeletons in his family closet involving both his mother and his sister, Ariana. When asked to concede that Dumbledore was brilliant, Rita tempers her answer by repeating rumors that Dumbledore didn't actually deserve credit for his achievements, including a claim by Ivor Dillonsby that Dumbledore "borrowed" his papers regarding the uses of dragon's blood. Rita also mentions that the famous "duel" with Grindelwald may not be the fabulous triumph of legend, but perhaps "he conjured a handkerchief from his wand and went quietly." She then discusses Dumbledore's relationship with Harry, calling it unhealthy, even sinister. She reminds readers that Harry had a troubled adolescence, according to her earlier reports. She assured Braithwaite that she and Harry have a very close bond, which is fortunate for Harry, since he has so few friends. She finishes by repeating the accounts that Harry was seen running from the scene of Dumbledore's death and that Harry blames Snape for Dumbledore's death, a man it is well known Harry hates. Harry reacts with fury at the article, striding around the room, remembering particularly galling fragments of the article. When he startles a neighbor by shouting, "Lies!" he sits on his bed and picks up the mirror shard. As he looks at it, he suddenly sees a flash of blue. He checks the room and, sure enough, nothing blue could be reflecting in the mirror. Looking again, he sees only the reflection of his own green eye. Harry believes he imagined the blue because he is thinking of Dumbledore, whose blue eyes will never pierce him again. Questions: 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your reaction the first time you read this? 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as Auror training is? 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing charms? Is he right? 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? Has he made much progress? 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several reappear, but not all. 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation welcome!) 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had always planned for Harry to have this realization? 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into the denouement. Any speculation? 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this do you think has a ring of truth? 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold certain truths? 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the first time you read the book? ------------------------------------- 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 3, The Dursleys Departing: Sept. 17 From brandy_muth at alltel.net Tue Sep 4 01:59:51 2007 From: brandy_muth at alltel.net (Brandy) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 01:59:51 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176650 Love the questions!! My thoughts: Questions: 1. I didn't know what to think. I had thought that Petunia would be the one to come into magic late in life (and no one did) and thought maybe it was from her? 2. I don't think its a flaw in the curriculum. I think its just advanced magic. If students were doing this too early, it'd be like human transfiguration...a big mess! Look what happened in COS when Lockhart tried to fix Harry's arm. If you had an unexperienced wizard trying to heal people, it could be potentially dangerous. I would assume its NEWT level. 3. Hermione knows a lot because she reads so much! And she does know some healing tricks. 4. I think he has made progress. He is focused on the task at hand, ie. finding and destroying Horcruxes and then going after LV. No time to dwell on emotion. (For the most part) 5. I don't know ;o) 6. I think it has a lot to do with the family secrets, but as we know, he is a secretive person for lots of reasons. He didn't tell Harry what he should of, when he should of, as he admits in OOtP (I think). Why? because he loves Harry. I think he has always hid things from those he loved to protect them. There's that rascally love thing again. 7. 8. I'm betting Doge didn't know a lot. I think DD kept much of his friendship with Grindelwald hidden, for very good reason. 9. While I think it was a fantastic duel, I'm sure, as with all things of legend, it grew over the years. I don't think RS is right 100% about anything ;o) 10. "... or do you think she had always planned for Harry to have this realization?" Yes. 11. I dont' think he would have ever wanted Harry to find out about Ariana and Grindelwald. He was obviously haunted by it (Cave in HBP) and embarrased by it as well. 12. I thought it was all a pack of lies. 13. Not at this time. Looking forward to what others say. 14. After finding out that DD had planned on Harry's death after defeating the remaining Horcruxes for years....very unhealthy! I have to admit I was *very* upset with DD there. 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold certain truths? 16. I wondered, for a moment, if DD wasn't dead (even though I was 100% convinced prior to reading that. Brandy From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 4 02:57:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 02:57:09 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176651 > Magpie: > Basically, yeah! I don't need explanations for why it's horrible to > be stuck with Dementors--I get that. But why should I recognize the > use of that particular punishment as a sign of "underlying > corruption?" > I guess I was a bit confused about what Dumbledore's ideals meant > in all of this. It seems like sort of an "I told you so" to me-- > Dumbledore correctly predicted that the Dementors would side with. > It ccontrasts with, for instance, my own predictions of things that > might come back and bite the heroes on the butt, but it just seems > to kind of show everybody should have listened to Dumbledore > whenever he said anything. Jen: I thought I did offer more than 'Dumbledore said' or at least the explanation worked out in my mind as more than that. Since political breakdown is at the root of Voldemort's rise in both wars imo, the choice of alliance is crucial. Politically the MOM chose to align with Voldemort's side indirectly by keeping the Dementors around. They gambled their entire operation on the choice in the name of safety and paid dearly for it. They shouldn't have needed Dumbledore to say, 'bad idea'; it should have been self-evident. So yeah, I think it's a degradation of values to gamble innocent lives of not only the MOM workers but everyone in the community on a perceived safety that doesn't exist. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Sep 4 03:00:38 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:00:38 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176652 In a message dated 9/3/2007 8:38:03 P.M. Central Daylight Time, anita_hillin at yahoo.com writes: Questions: <1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > I thought that it was an strange choice of prank. Making tea takes a little more effort than leaving a pail of water for him to stumble over for example. I had thought that maybe Petunia had done it though <2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176653 > > Magpie: > > Basically, yeah! I don't need explanations for why it's horrible to > > be stuck with Dementors--I get that. But why should I recognize the > > use of that particular punishment as a sign of "underlying > > corruption?" > > > I guess I was a bit confused about what Dumbledore's ideals meant > > in all of this. It seems like sort of an "I told you so" to me-- > > Dumbledore correctly predicted that the Dementors would side with. > > It ccontrasts with, for instance, my own predictions of things that > > might come back and bite the heroes on the butt, but it just seems > > to kind of show everybody should have listened to Dumbledore > > whenever he said anything. > > Jen: I thought I did offer more than 'Dumbledore said' or at least > the explanation worked out in my mind as more than that. Since > political breakdown is at the root of Voldemort's rise in both wars > imo, the choice of alliance is crucial. Politically the MOM chose to > align with Voldemort's side indirectly by keeping the Dementors > around. They gambled their entire operation on the choice in the > name of safety and paid dearly for it. They shouldn't have needed > Dumbledore to say, 'bad idea'; it should have been self-evident. > > So yeah, I think it's a degradation of values to gamble innocent > lives of not only the MOM workers but everyone in the community on a > perceived safety that doesn't exist. Magpie: In general, I totally follow this, but how is this made clear in the WW? Is the Ministry obviously wrong for aligning themselves with creatures who would align with Voldemort? Does that mean they'd be wrong to align with giants or hire werewolves? Anybody who would side with Voldemort? (They shouldn't hire Slytherins either.) Or is it just that I should know that Dementors are symbolic of stuff in my world that shows people doing stuff that seems evil in the name of safety and protection? Because I can certainly understand that, but it still seems pretty arbitrary in the way this world is set up. They seem like a bad idea to me, but not automatically a sign to worry about the government given other OTT punishments in canon that don't seem to signal any underlying issues with the person doing it. It's not like my problem is that I'm pro-Dementor. I'm anti-Dementor as guards of Azkaban. I'm just always surprised when any of these people agree with me in this area, so I never assume it. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 03:47:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 03:47:42 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176654 > Prep0strus: > You can dismiss > Sirius as a broken clock, but I don't see the point. I think he, as > well as the comments we see from Lily, Lupin, even Snape were JKR's > way of showing us what we needed to be shown - that those Young > Death Eaters were bad apples. zgirnius: My difficulty with this argument is that you put no time frame on these statements. We see scenes of Snape as a young boy, making friends with a Muggleborn girl in his neighborhood, and looking forward to starting wizard school. We see he is far less open, happy, and carefree than the girl, and also see hints of why that his: problems at home. We learn he wants to go into Slytherin House because he'd rather be 'brainy than brawny'. Lily likes this boy, he is her friend. I simply do not see him as a bad apple at this point; I also do not see why on earth anyone would tell me I *should* see him this way. It seems clear on the face of it that this is not how he is portrayed. Sirius's description of Severus and James? OotP, "Career Advice": 'Look, Harry' said Sirius placatingly, 'James and Snape hated each other from the moment they set eyes on each other, it was just one of those things, you can understand that, can't you? I think James was everything Snape wanted to be - he was popular, he was good at Quidditch - good at pretty much everything. And Snape was just this little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts, and James - whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry - always hated the Dark Arts.' zgirnius: Sorry, I just don't see it. I get he and James despised Snape, but I do not get that they understood him correctly. The above is not the boy we are shown. Quidditch?! Please... Anyway, as I keep feeling I need to explain, I am not accusing the much-loved Sirius of lying. I am just suggesting that understanding people is not his forte. Why should I trust he could really tell about a boy in another house, what his true nature was, when it was his own brilliant idea to make one of his 'best friends' the Potters' Secret Keeper? You know, the one that became a Death Eater... You say Sirius was right, Snape became a Death Eater. I say he was wrong, Snape was a loyal and brave Order member. We are both right, after all, so Sirius was not entirely right, at any rate. But my point is not that he was or wasn't right, but that he had no way to know as early as their first year, which choices Snape would make, because he was proved to be capable of making both good and and choices in the course of his life. > zgirnius: > What is your objection to: > "Or perhaps in Slytherin > You'll make your real friends, > Those cunning folks use any means > To achieve their ends." > Prep0strus: > Cunning: skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; > craftiness; guile. zgirnius: I place myself in Ravenclaw because, while I was a very undecided sort of teen, I went on to pursue an advanced degree in theoretical methematics, about as ivory tower-y and head-in-the-clouds as one can get. However, I did seriously consider at one point pursuing a career in Law. This is also a field where brains and logical thinking play a role, but (unlike pure math) it is about the real world. The goal is not to investigate neat, fascinating things (at least, they are such in the opinion of theoretical mathematicians), it is to *win*, whether by finding a technicality, presenting a convincing argument, finding a deal acceptable to all parties, or what have you. Being a cunning sort who can use any means to achieve her ends, would be just the thing, handier than sheer brainpower directed at abstract thoughts. And that is how I understand that phrase. Not, to murder in order to get rich and powerful, but to be flexible and inventive in using all means available to achieve a goal. I didn't read that as 'evil' but as 'realistic' or 'pragmatic'. > prep0strus: > Couldn't Slytherins have had `street-smarts' or be `clever' or > `practical'? Couldn't they `strive to be the best' or `try their > hardest' or even `long for greatness'? > No, they'll `use any means'. Never is there even an implication that > they might use any means to achieve ends that could be altruistic ? it > is `their ends', with an implied selfishness, as we know from > `power-hungry Slytherin'. zgirnius: It seems to me that you are reading the characteristics we had shoved in our faces of canon Slytherins who *were* evil onto the text of the songs and insisting that's the only reading of those songs. The first time I read the PS/SS Sorting Song, I basically got 'they are the pragmatic house that is about getting things done' out of the description. I expected some future Ministry officials (this was before I knew Ministry was a bad word, we are taking PS/SS), entrepreneurs, inventors, philanthropists, and social climbers in there along with the Dark Wizards Hagrid advertised. You insist I must read 'their ends' as selfish - but 'their' is a simple possessive pronoun, which can describe any end chosen by a Slytherin, altruistic, selfish, or other. Among the ends chosen by Slytherins in the seven volume series we now have 'making Voldemort mortal' (Regulus Black) and 'helping Dumbledore protect Harry Potter' (Severus Snape), neither of which seem particularly selfish to me. Lots of Slytherins are/were evil, but I don't see that they *had* to be be definition, or that future ones necessarily *will* be. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Sep 4 03:56:31 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 19:56:31 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <351B9D50-674D-4002-87AA-9B1FBC6A72D0@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176655 On 2007, Sep 03, , at 17:21, AnitaKH wrote: > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? Yes, I think it is a flaw in the curriculum. While advanced healing may be left to NEWT level, basic healing should be covered. I mean, virtually everyone cuts themselves at one time or another. They should also teach those "householdy" types of spells, like fixing robes with lace, mending, cleaning, etc. They need a first aid and practical arts curriculum. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing > charms? Is he right? Hermione thinks ahead about things. She has probably thought about simple healing spells because of several of the accidents that have happened to people in the stories. She probably looked them up and learned the ones that were readily learnable. > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > Has he made much progress? Personally, I don't think suppressing feeling constitutes controlling them. Although there is a time and place for examining feelings, I think Harry prefers to think that they will just go away if he doesn't think about them. > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. I think the fact that she names things specifically means that we should look out for how they might be used - foreshadowing. I think that including things that aren't used sets up a few red herrings, so that we don't automatically assume everything he takes is important. He isn't prescient. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > welcome!) Dumbledore was definitely trained to be secretive. From the time Ariana was attacked and his father was imprisoned, he was told to be evasive about her injuries. Similarly to Harry's training with "Don't ask questions!", Dumbledore's training with "Be evasive." is a major factor in how they subsequently approach others. > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? I fully believe RS when she says that a few drops of Verita Serum helped. Given that Bathilda was already nearly dead, she was pretty powerless to resist anything RS asked. > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? It was such a short-lived friendship, I wouldn't be surprised if Doge knew very little. It is probably another thing Dumbledore learned to keep to himself. > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Probably. > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > always planned for Harry to have this realization? I think it was a necessary part of the story development. If he had been more curious and asked more questions, he could have, like Hermione, done a bit of research and found out much more. But then Dumbledore's fallibility wouldn't have hit him so hard and his final decision to trust his plan would not have been such a major step. > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? I don't think Dumbledore would have answered most of Harry's questions, even if he did ask them. For instance, when Dumbledore had the withered hand, Harry did ask about it, but each time DD put off telling him, saying that there were other things they needed to talk about more. > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? For some reason, I did think that there was a shard of truth in what she said. Lies are more powerful if they have a basis in truth. Their very plausibility make people more willing to believe them. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > the denouement. Any speculation? I always thought we would see at least one of the uses of dragonsblood. I wonder how they get it. I wonder how they get dragon's heartstrings for wands. It isn't as though the dragon would voluntarily donate them. > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? I think she is just casting aspersions that she hopes will make both Dumbledore and Harry look bad. > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > certain truths? I think both are flawed. They see what they want to see. Ah, the truth. "It is a beautiful and terrible thing and should therefore be treated with great caution." > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > first time you read the book? I think I thought it was Dumbledore's portrait - that somehow the other mirror was somewhere that Dumbledore could look out of a portrait of his and see. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 04:10:53 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 21:10:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam Message-ID: <259098.15752.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176656 Questions: 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your reaction the first time you read this? That it was a prank. 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as Auror training is? I think it is in a way JKR making fun of herself for overlooking this point. Also it sort of makes sense, you don't want students to learn healing spells, because they might try to heal themselves which could be a disaster, it is better that they have to go to the nurse each time. It could be NEWT, at least basic first aid, but I suspect it's a specialty. Aren't there trainees at St. Mungo's. Didn't we see one in OOP? 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing charms? Is he right? Yes she knows some since she saved Ron from his apparation accident, but I wouldn't call her an expert. As the book develops I'd say Ms. Weasley and Fleur are better. 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? Has he made much progress? He's getting better at holding in his emotions. Denying them, but I don't see how that's healthy in anyone, though it might be needed in a time of war. 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several reappear, but not all. So the reader would pay attention. And watch for the items. She doesn't name the books because they aren't important and also most of her book titles have a humor elements and humor isn't appropriate here. 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation welcome!) I think it is the nature of most pure-blood wizards in general to be secretive, not just the Dumbledores. After-all all are trained from when they can first speak that they need to protect their world and hide it from the muggles. Even the Weasley house is intentionally out of the way. Add in the family secret and a minor amount of celebrity status for the act his father committed and I think he was mostly trained to be secretive. 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? You mean Rita stole? Bagshot had Dementia. Rita would have just rifled her draws for whatever she could find? 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? Nothing. I can't imagine Dumbledore admitting much about it. It only lasted a short time anyway so there was not much to tell and what there was Dumbledore would have been ashamed of. 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/ Dumbledore duel, but clearly is reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? No, she's not at least much. There is some exaggeration, but I imagine it was at least as great as the duel between Dumbledore and Voldemort in the Department of Mysteries. A person with an elder wand can be defeated, but the secret is not to attack the wand bearer directly but manipulate the environment around him. Say by causing a tidal wave etc.... 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had always planned for Harry to have this realization? Always planned. I think the readers frustration was planned. It is one of Harry's faults and this gives him some introspection. 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? Zilch. He's private. And part of his power with the students comes from his mysteriousness. 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? I suspected some was true. Rita deals in exciting shades of the truth, not outright falsehoods. Not even Harry/Hermione was an entirely false, it just was an incorrect rumor. 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into the denouement. Any speculation? It's a tease for the encyclopedia. Perhaps one use is to defeat the Elder Wand. One use for Dragons blood is of course to circulate oxygen to the Dragons cells. So we are really looking for ten more besides that elusive oven cleaner. LOL! 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this do you think has a ring of truth? Well ultimately DD is trying to get harry to sacrifice himself, so yeah, I'd say that is unhealthy. But Rita's actually implying pedophilia here or at least that is what I thought. 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold certain truths? Doge just can't see DD faults. He is too good a friend and in a way has a relationship towards DD that is more Colin Creeveyish then Ronish. He worships DD. DD best friend was a hanger-on. That can't have been good for DD's ego. DD BTW way was a combination of Harry and Hermione. Who could compete with that? 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the first time you read the book? I said: "Oh, Oh that's important." ------------------------------- DA Jones --------------------------------- Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 04:35:06 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:35:06 -0000 Subject: Identifying with Slytherins was Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176657 > zgirnius: > My difficulty with this argument is that you put no time frame on > these statements. > > OotP, "Career Advice": > 'Look, Harry' said Sirius placatingly, 'James and Snape hated each > other from the moment they set eyes on each other, it was just one of > those things, you can understand that, can't you? I think James was > everything Snape wanted to be - he was popular, he was good at > Quidditch - good at pretty much everything. And Snape was just this > little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts, and James - > whatever else he may have appeared to you, Harry - always hated the > Dark Arts.' > > zgirnius: > Sorry, I just don't see it. I get he and James despised Snape, but I > do not get that they understood him correctly. The above is not the > boy we are shown. Quidditch?! Please... > > Anyway, as I keep feeling I need to explain, I am not accusing the > much-loved Sirius of lying. I am just suggesting that understanding > people is not his forte. Why should I trust he could really tell > about a boy in another house, what his true nature was, when it was > his own brilliant idea to make one of his 'best friends' the Potters' > Secret Keeper? Prep0strus: You're right about the time frame, but also look at Sirius's statement. It spans a fairly vast time frame as well - I'm sure there's some hyperbole and mixed memories in there, which isn't necessarily a judgment issue. hating each other from the 'moment they set eyes on each other' can't be the same in sirius' mind even with when james was popular or playing quidditch. Of course, sometimes it's a matter of when JKR types one thing and when she types another. On the other hand, I think that this passage was a way of JKR telling us some things - that Snape was into the dark arts and that James hated them - and I do think it's telling that Sirius notes James' hatred more than his own. I know the debate started over the dark arts, and I still believe that they have been not clearly defined, but the original purpose was to have a clear line delineating them from regular magic... and that Severus was interested in them when he was in school and the Marauders definitely were not. I do trust Sirius' judgment to an extent, because he did make good choices. Good choices in friends, for the most part, and good choices in bucking the family tradition for a better path. Snape made bad choices, going against his good friend to take a bad path, from which he had quite a time getting back. I don't think Sirius and James necessarily understood Severus, but I don't think they needed to understand the inner workings of his soul. Fairly quickly in school they would have been natural rivals in houses. natural rivals in what the slytherin house was working on and towards, especially considering james' hatred. and when i say they were right, it's that they were right in the way lily was right about Sev's friends. They may have simply been school rivals, but when some of them grow up to join the DE and some grow up to join the order, and there was clear maneuvering before school ended to get there, it's a little deeper than that. I don't have a timeline of their hate, their fights, their outbursts. But taking the whole school period together, we can see the outcome. I just happen to trust the Marauders motivations more than you do. I don't think they're perfect, but I do have my silly little obsession with believing everyone had real knowledge of the world, even as kids. Some posters disagree with me, and in doing so will obviously come to different conclusions. But my reading makes sense to me. > > zgirnius: > > What is your objection to: > > "Or perhaps in Slytherin > > You'll make your real friends, > > Those cunning folks use any means > > To achieve their ends." > > > Prep0strus: > > Cunning: skill employed in a shrewd or sly manner, as in deceiving; > > craftiness; guile. > > zgirnius: > I place myself in Ravenclaw because, while I was a very undecided > sort of teen, I went on to pursue an advanced degree in theoretical > methematics, about as ivory tower-y and head-in-the-clouds as one can > get. However, I did seriously consider at one point pursuing a career > in Law. > Prep0strus: Not sure that trying to show slytherins as 'not evil' is best done with examples of the tricks that lawyers pull. ;) (sorry, lawyer jokes are too easy) zgirnius: > This is also a field where brains and logical thinking play a role, > but (unlike pure math) it is about the real world. The goal is not to > investigate neat, fascinating things (at least, they are such in the > opinion of theoretical mathematicians), it is to *win*, whether by > finding a technicality, presenting a convincing argument, finding a > deal acceptable to all parties, or what have you. Being a cunning > sort who can use any means to achieve her ends, would be just the > thing, handier than sheer brainpower directed at abstract thoughts. > And that is how I understand that phrase. Not, to murder in order to > get rich and powerful, but to be flexible and inventive in using all > means available to achieve a goal. I didn't read that as 'evil' but > as 'realistic' or 'pragmatic'. > Prep0strus: I never necessarily read Ravenclaws as being necessarily abstract. Instead, I read 'cunning' as a more negative adjective, rather than simply a more practical one. > > prep0strus: > > Couldn't Slytherins have had `street-smarts' or be `clever' or > > `practical'? Couldn't they `strive to be the best' or `try their > > hardest' or even `long for greatness'? > > No, they'll `use any means'. Never is there even an implication > that > > they might use any means to achieve ends that could be altruistic ? > it > > is `their ends', with an implied selfishness, as we know from > > `power-hungry Slytherin'. > > zgirnius: > It seems to me that you are reading the characteristics we had shoved > in our faces of canon Slytherins who *were* evil onto the text of the > songs and insisting that's the only reading of those songs. The first > time I read the PS/SS Sorting Song, I basically got 'they are the > pragmatic house that is about getting things done' out of the > description. I expected some future Ministry officials (this was > before I knew Ministry was a bad word, we are taking PS/SS), > entrepreneurs, inventors, philanthropists, and social climbers in > there along with the Dark Wizards Hagrid advertised. Prep0strus: This is that point I mentioned where the middle ground is far, far apart. I simply am unable to read 'any means' in a non-negative light. Why not creative? Or non-traditional? or pragmatic? or extraordinary? why ANY? i think it's a very loaded phrase, meant to show us that these are the type of people who would cheat, lie, and steal to get to the top. And if I'm reading the characteristics of evil canon Slytherins into some, that makes sense, because that's what we were given. We weren't given clever Slytherins who advanced on their wit and ingenuity and creative impulses. We were given evil Slytherins (some who would come back from evil, or temper it with something else), and we were given Slughorn, who wasn't clever so much as bigoted, sycophantic, gluttonous, and exclusionary. zgiirnius: > Lots of Slytherins are/were evil, but I don't see that they *had* to > be be definition, or that future ones necessarily *will* be. Prep0strus: I don't think they *have* to be evil. But I do think they *have* to be unpleasant. Simply because I haven't been shown one that wasn't. In 7 books, a world to choose from - including many characters who weren't even assigned houses, a few names could have been dropped to give me worthy examples. I feel it has to be fairly deliberate to not do so, so I see a world in which there are not any slytherins for me to admire. Also, I think they are much, much, much more likely to become evil. Folks who would use 'any means' are certainly more likely to find that some of those means involve being horrible to other people. I suppose it depends on what their 'ends' are. Considering the only traits given to us are their pureblooded wackoness, and ambition - which i do think implies a desire for personal advancement, and not a general desire for nice things for the world - i think it is quite likely we will again and again see this type of people hurting others. There they are: ambitious, convinced of their own superiority by blood, and willing to do anything to get what they want. I personally can't see how these traits can be considered equal to the other houses, or remotely desirable. I think anyone who will use any means to achieve their ends is someone to stay far away from. It may turn out that their ends might mean your end. It certainly has for a lot of people in the WW. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 04:56:02 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 04:56:02 -0000 Subject: Florian Fortescue: (was: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176658 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" wrote: > ... > > > > Jen wrote in Catlady wrote: > > > > It's tragic that Florian Fortescue was captured by the > > enemy (and presumably tortured before being killed), > > but saying there was no ice cream anymore is a bit of > > an exageration. bboyminn wrote: > > Sorry...Florian Fortescue captured and killed? I was > under the impression that Mr. Fortescue's fate was > unknown, with the only hint being that he might have > closed up shop and fled for the duration of the war. > > And that is exactly what I prefer to believe, that > he simply fled for whatever reason; perhaps he had > muggle-born relatives. Or perhaps, he realized what > the wizard world would be like if Voldemort won, > and figured he could sell ice cream anywhere in the > world. > *small snip* > Steve/bboyminn Doddie here: Much as I hate to admit I think Fortescue may have met his demise.. We see him bringing out ice-cream to Harry in POA just giving a special treat w/o a request etc... I think given what we know of cannon may have been tortured by the de's because he was friends with Ollivander. Ollivander packed up and left, but was found after Voldie delved into Fortescue's mind under torture..or he attempted to aid Ollivander in escaping and the plan backfired or they were betrayed. Is this cannon? nope..Do I want forescue gone? NOPE I want Harry taking James, Albus and Lily for sundae's at Fortescue's.. I think in Harry's journey though it would be more poingant to have Fortescue who liked Harry and gave him special treats as he studied die; rather than Ollivander who Harry could never quite decided if he liked or not. (I like that...Harry rescuing Ollivander..it does have more meaning than if he had only recued Fortescue...but what info would DE's want out of Fortescue other than the whereabouts of Ollivander? Why keep him alive? They don't want ice cream or special recipies for such(yet another thing wrong with the DE outlook on life IMHO), they want power and the only recipie we see from them is the Voldie recipie*wretching-gag*. And I do believe it was in cannon that Fortescues shop was a mess...If you suddenly pick up and leave what is left behind is seldom a mess unless you are of the untidy variety *blushing*.. (Cannon also states that Ollivanders shop was in order but Ollie had disappeared.) I dunno, I always thought that after Voldie returned and that night in the graveyard DD may have tried to encourage Ollivander to go into hiding..we never get the details or even a hint of them in DH.. (were they edited out or did JKR forget?). Doddie, (who likes the Fortescue mystery because it will be easily answered in an interview with JKR and may have something to do with the plot line, and then again may not. Also, most folks aren't so emotionally involved with Fortescue and Ollivander, as they are with let's say DD and Snape?) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Tue Sep 4 05:37:11 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 05:37:11 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176660 > Magpie: > In general, I totally follow this, but how is this made clear in > the WW? Is the Ministry obviously wrong for aligning themselves > with creatures who would align with Voldemort? Does that mean > they'd be wrong to align with giants or hire werewolves? Anybody > who would side with Voldemort? (They shouldn't hire Slytherins > either.) Jen: There's no offering of any freedoms to Dementors that can be offered to other groups like the giants or werewolves in order to work out an alliance. There's nothing ethical you can offer the Dementors. They want humans to prey on, period. Magpie: > Or is it just that I should know that Dementors are symbolic of > stuff in my world that shows people doing stuff that seems evil in > the name of safety and protection? Because I can certainly > understand that, but it still seems pretty arbitrary in the way > this world is set up. They seem like a bad idea to me, but not > automatically a sign to worry about the government given other OTT > punishments in canon that don't seem to signal any underlying > issues with the person doing it. It's not like my problem is that > I'm pro-Dementor. I'm anti-Dementor as guards of Azkaban. I'm just > always surprised when any of these people agree with me in this > area, so I never assume it. Jen: I suppose the signal to me is that they degrade the soul and that's a huge part of the story. I'm not exactly sure what else you mean here? Or maybe there's nothing more I can add since we see the WW in a different way. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 06:04:59 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 3 Sep 2007 23:04:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Fundamental Message.../ Heroes... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709032304hf08ff0dpe93dfebc6b9eaf4b@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176661 Betsy Hp: > > She has a boy unthinkingly head off to his death because > > his leader told him to. Lynda: No. She has a young man who has reached his majority under the laws of his land/culture, come to the vivid realization that to rid the world of an evil man who wants to bring both non-magical and magical people under his rule to put in place a class system that will make everyone who does not agree with Voldie and his supporters into a lesser class of humans and wipe out a large portion of the population (the non-magical, those who are magical but were not born into pureblood families, those who have a parent who is not pure blood) he has to die. He had to be willing to die for it to work. There is no lack of thought there. There's quite a bit of thought there, in point of fact. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Tue Sep 4 09:10:25 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 05:10:25 -0400 Subject: Grindelwald was: Re: Dumbledore's age. Message-ID: <004401c7eed3$6ee092b0$23c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 176662 Random832 said: >>The question wasn't "Is Grindelwald still alive", it was asking if she picked 1945 for a reason. She answered truthfully. She failed to contradict a leading question, but to do so would have given too much away.<< No, the question wasn't that, but the whole quote, which I post now - and probably should have posted earlier for clarity - makes it VERY clear that he was already dead...and died in 1945. """And then the third is from Helen Poole, 18, from Thirsk, the one about Grindelwald, which I'm sure you've been gearing up for us to ask. JKR: Come on then, remind me. Is he dead? ES: Yeah, is he dead? JKR: Yeah, he is. ES: Is he important? JKR: [regretful] Ohhh... ES: You don't have to answer but can you give us some backstory on him? JKR: I'm going to tell you as much as I told someone earlier who asked me. You know Owen who won the [UK television] competition to interview me? He asked about Grindelwald [pronounced "Grindelvald" HMM.]. He said, "Is it coincidence that he died in 1945," and I said no. It amuses me to make allusions to things that were happening in the Muggle world, so my feeling would be that while there's a global Muggle war going on, there's also a global wizarding war going on.""" Personally, I can only read one thing from that, as can many others: Grindlewald died in 1945. "Is he dead?" she was asked..."Yeah, he is," JKR replied. Bringing the poor beggar back to life for DH was lame, IMO. YMMV. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 4 12:10:11 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:10:11 -0000 Subject: Florian Fortescue: (was: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176663 > Doddie here: > I think in Harry's journey though it would be more poingant to have > Fortescue who liked Harry and gave him special treats as he studied > die; rather than Ollivander who Harry could never quite decided if > he liked or not. (I like that...Harry rescuing Ollivander..it does > have more meaning than if he had only recued Fortescue...but what > info would DE's want out of Fortescue other than the whereabouts of > Ollivander? Why keep him alive? Potioncat: Fortescue helped Harry with his History of Magic homework. He seemed to know quite a bit about WW history. I always supected he was taken so that LV could question about ancient artefacts, or so that Fortescue couldn't tell others about them. I wonder if Ollivander still thinks He-who-Must-Not-Be-Named is a great wizard? From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 4 13:41:10 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:41:10 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176664 Potioncat: Thank you Penapart-Elf for a thoughtful set of questions! > Questions: > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your ?? reaction the first time you read this? Potioncat: I don't remember my first reaction, but more recently it reminded me of brownies and house-elves. Dudley was leaving a gift of food for Harry, just like Hermione left gifts of hats for house-elves. In older stories, people used to leave gifts of milk for brownies. > > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as ?? Auror training is? Potioncat: A flaw? Yes, wouldn't you think basic first aid sort of charms would be more useful than being able to make a teacup dance? But Harry knows Episkey. Tonks used it to fix his nose and he used it when someone was hurt in Quidditch practice. Not a major healing charm, but one he's used before. Harry wishes he knew some healing charms. Why doesn't he learn some between "now" and September while he's in hiding? > > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing ?? charms? Is he right? Potioncat: Yes, she does know some healing magic, and she has some tools. Later we'll see her treat Ron's injury when he splinches himself. (Although that injury seemed out of proportion to how we've seen it before in canon.) So here's another question. Why doesn't Hermione try to help Snape after LV leaves the shack? HpfGU member Sigune asks this question on her Live Journal at this site. (Warning, Sigune is not happy with dear Jo.) http://sigune.livejournal.com/64998.html#cutid1 > > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several ?? reappear, but not all. Potioncat: You saw the deliberation he was putting into this. It contrasted with the comment that he never really unpacked and packed properly in the past and now he is carefully planning out his future. He has matured and is more man than boy. No, more man than he was--still more boy. > > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation ?? welcome!) Potioncat: Aberforth is pretty reserved too. And I can't remember who suggested that Kendra was Muggleborn. Having a family secret does make a person less likely to reveal even little things. We are given bits and pieces of information about DD that we have to interpret along side Harry. DD's secrets kept piling up. Was his mother Muggleborn, what was going on with his sister, what about his friendship with Grindelwald? We also had six books of DD being somewhat reserved. So I think it was one area where JKR did a good job of keeping us on the edge of our seats. > > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald ?? become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? Potioncat: I wouldn't think DD would have talked about it at all. > > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a ?? duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Potioncat: I don't know what to make of this one. We aren't really given an unbiased description. And who knows what part of Skeeter's reporting to believe. But I don't think he just gave up. > > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had ?? always planned for Harry to have this realization? Potioncat: I think she was winking at us. She gave him this weakness on purpose, having him acknowledge it didn't change anything, but maybe showed a little growth. Also, it's a true fact of life. Once a loved one is gone, you think of all sorts of things you wished you'd asked but didn't. > > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would ?? have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? Potioncat: None at all. And isn't that a kicker, when Harry does ask a questions of someone, he doesn??t get straight answers? Oh, DD's answer about seeing himself holding socks has turned into one of the best "jokes on me" in the book. Boy, have we readers put a lot of symbolism into a pair of wool socks that were only comic relief!!!! My mother-in-law and my stepmother always give socks at Christmas. So for years I've watched as socks were unwrapped time and again and smiled at the thought of DD's socks. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into ?? the denouement. Any speculation? Potioncat: Well, I liked the idea of it being applied to Harry's scar by Snape and Hagrid, but that boat sunk! It is one of the many incomplete details that JKR packs into the whole HP tale. I'm not sure if this is a weakness or strength, but it's what has made this experience so much fun. > > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold ?? certain truths? Potioncat: I tended to believe Doge just because of his name. I associated "doge" with a wise man. So I had to go look it up to see what it really was. It was an elected magistrate in Venice. So I guess how you might interpret the meaning of the name, might depend on what you think about elected officials. Doge thinks of DD much like Ron thinks of Harry---or even Sirius of James. So I think he tells the truth as he sees it. Aberforth of course, thinks Doge was blind to DD's darker side. I didn't believer a word of Skeeter's report when I read it in this chapter. It wasn't until later that questions came up my mind that she might have had some basis for some of it. > > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the ?? first time you read the book? Potioncat: I thought the current headmistress or headmaster had the mirror in his/her office and it was Portrait!DD's eyes being reflected. I thought perhaps the mirror moved and the connection was lost. I wasn't expecting McGonagall to be Headmistress---but I thought perhaps an Order member would be. (Come to think of it, I was right!) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Sep 4 13:48:17 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 13:48:17 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176665 > > Magpie: > > In general, I totally follow this, but how is this made clear in > > the WW? Is the Ministry obviously wrong for aligning themselves > > with creatures who would align with Voldemort? Does that mean > > they'd be wrong to align with giants or hire werewolves? Anybody > > who would side with Voldemort? (They shouldn't hire Slytherins > > either.) > > Jen: There's no offering of any freedoms to Dementors that can be > offered to other groups like the giants or werewolves in order to > work out an alliance. There's nothing ethical you can offer the > Dementors. They want humans to prey on, period. Magpie: Yes, because Dementors are monsters, basically, while Werewolves are supposed to be like people instead of monsters. (Dementors are "Dark Magic"--worse than just animals going after their natural prey somehow, so that association with them says something hinky about you--magic *isn't* always neutral.) It's not that I don't *see* the difference. But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this kind of punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that the ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that they did something dangerous. As is the case where the Twins lock Montague in a Vanishing Cabinet and nobody cares what happens to him. That comes back to bite them, but was it a sign that perhaps the good guys were showing some underlying corruption there? No, it doesn't seem so. The Ministry needed a scolding and a wake-up call about that, but the Twins didn't. My point is just that yes, I see the same differences you do, but it still seems like one of those places where there's this artificial superiority marking those idiots at the Ministry as needing a lesson rather than a really thought-through moral idea. I get it because I get it, not because I really feel like these guys are good authorities on how to read signs that you're going to the Dark Side. They are supposed to be that, I just don't think they earn it. It's one of the places I'm aware of the deck being stacked. -m From fuzz876i at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 12:10:00 2007 From: fuzz876i at yahoo.com (jennifer) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:10:00 -0000 Subject: PICTURES AT HOGWARTS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176666 In all of the books the pictures can visit other pictures at Hogwarts. Case in point when the Fat Lady's friend Violet visits her after the announcement of the Triwizard Champions in the Goblet of Fire or Sir Cadogen running throught the portraits to lead Harry, Ron, and Hermione to the Divination tower in The Prisoner of Azkaban. Why couldn't Dumbledore visit Phinellias Black's portrait in Deathly Hallows? He said that they could commune with each other but that he could not bring Dumbledore into his portrait. This is very confusing because if other paintings could visit each other then why couldn't the headmasters not visit each other's pictures? Jennifer From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 4 14:08:29 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:08:29 -0000 Subject: PICTURES AT HOGWARTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176667 "jennifer" wrote: snip Why couldn't > Dumbledore visit Phinellias Black's portrait in Deathly Hallows? He > said that they could commune with each other but that he could not > bring Dumbledore into his portrait. This is very confusing because if > other paintings could visit each other then why couldn't the > headmasters not visit each other's pictures? Potioncat: My understanding is that Portrait!DD could visit any of his own portraits where ever they were; he could visit any portrait at Hogwarts; but he couldn't travel via someone else's portrait out of Hogwarts. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 14:26:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:26:23 -0000 Subject: Harry as Frodo or not? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176668 I used to believe that Harry does have similarities with Frodo. I never thought he was being a carbon copy of Frodo, or anything like this, but did have similarities, yes. And of course it was discussed here many times, but I was talking to somebody offline about HP and LOTR recently and this person made a remark that he does not think that Harry has many similarities with Frodo at all. Except that they both go on the quest of course. This person thinks that Harry and Sam are much better match, comparison wise. Neither Harry nor Sam are accepting their destiny just because they decide to do so. They do it for specific people. Sam goes initially to protect his friend, and Harry goes to avenge his parents. Frodo is at least asked to agree, no? Nobody asked Harry. And of course the main similarity to me is that neither Harry nor Sam fail AND both of them get the ending of the happy family with kids and all that. I mean of course Frodo's kindness makes it that in his falling he wins, etc, but Sam IMO literally never fails, does not succumb to ring, etc. Any thoughts? Alla From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 4 14:37:12 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:37:12 -0000 Subject: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176669 > Meliss9900@ wrote: > > My impression when I was initially reading the book was that the > > Fidelius Charm was placed AFTER they showed up at Shell Cottage not > > before. > > > Also if the Fidelius had been cast before then Ron wouldn't > > have known how to get to Shell Cottage when he left Harry > > and Hermione in the woods. > > > Niru writes: > > Totally agree with Melissa here. My understanding is that they placed the Fidelius charm on Shell Cottage and on Aunty Muriel's place AFTER Harry and co. arrived at Shell Cottage. aussie writes: But think also about Dobby's timing to get back to Harry and Ron after delivering Olivander and Griphook. Dobby was away for several minutes. He didn't appear in the right spot, leave the others on the doorstep and return to his beloved Harry surrounded by those that wanted Harry dead. Something slowed Dobby down from returning. What if Dobby had enough information to apparate into the general area and start yelling for Ron's brother to reveal himself. He could stand in front of a house that was hidden (like Death Eaters outside the Black's old home) and just make noise untill someone took the escaped prisoners off Dobby's hands. Ron would have known roughly where their house was as well in case the Charm had been there for a while. He may have just instructed Dobby to do something similar that he'd done months earlier. Bill may have given him something to come back with Ron inside the protected area (like to the top step of 12 GP). Judging Fleur's nature of happily staying out of the carnage taking place around Britton (she wanted Harry to not go out again, but stay safe at Shell Cottage), it seems likely Bill would have had protective Charms in place for a while. Shell Cottage may not have had full protection when 7Harry flew (since Bill and Fleur went to the Burrow, not the sea) but after their wedding, they thought it better safe than sorry. When Lupin arrived, he sounded as though he'd had the secret revealed to him ages ago, so I doubt the Charm was a paranoid eternal protection, nor a recent after thought. aussie (impressed with steve's 4th reading) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 14:42:24 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:42:24 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176670 > Magpie: > Yes, because Dementors are monsters, basically, while Werewolves are > supposed to be like people instead of monsters. (Dementors are "Dark > Magic"--worse than just animals going after their natural prey > somehow, so that association with them says something hinky about > you--magic *isn't* always neutral.) It's not that I don't *see* the > difference. But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this > kind of punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that > the ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that > they did something dangerous. As is the case where the Twins lock > Montague in a Vanishing Cabinet and nobody cares what happens to > him. That comes back to bite them, but was it a sign that perhaps > the good guys were showing some underlying corruption there? No, it > doesn't seem so. The Ministry needed a scolding and a wake-up call > about that, but the Twins didn't. > > My point is just that yes, I see the same differences you do, but it > still seems like one of those places where there's this artificial > superiority marking those idiots at the Ministry as needing a lesson > rather than a really thought-through moral idea. Alla: I guess I just do not see the arbitraririty that you are talking about. If nothing else to me it is clear that Dementors are the worst thing ever and it is horrible for the Ministry to associate with them, and keep them as punishment, because it deals with spiritual staff, NOT physical and it was always crystal clear to me that book places far more emphasis on the spiritual staff and not physical danger to once' person You keep talking about Marietta, and Montague in the toilet, etc, and of course I disagree with you about those punishments being so very horrifying, etc BUT let's suppose for the sake of the argument I agree with you. Let's imagine that *only* for this argument I buy it - Marietta and Montague punishment were bad, horrible, sick, whatever. Having said all that, those punishments are still dealing only with **physical** aspect of the punishment, no? I suppose you can say that Montague could die, had nobody found him there. I do not buy it, but I am willing to make that assumption. Was his soul in any danger? I really do not think so. I mean assuming that he could die, which I do not see. Most I can see that he was physically hurt. I just feel that books always always stressed that saving your soul is more important than ANY danger to you, physical one I mean and that motive only got stronger for me as the books came closer to conclusion. Didn't Dumbledore dear pretty much ignored physical danger to his students to save Draco's soul in HBP? Was not Snape worried that his soul will be split? Was it not said that it is an evil thing to split your soul? That is why I find it very consistent that one thing where good guys **will** drew the line is where other soul is concerned. And Harry **will** offer Voldemort to try for some remorse no matter how much pain he endured from him. And Dumbledore IS happy that Grindelwald experienced remorse, didn't he? Because that means that the soul of his former friend can spend eternity in the nicer place than Voldemort's. No, I do not see any arbitrarity in the why it is bad for the Ministry to associate with Dementors. I find it a very consistent thing in the books morality system. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Sep 4 14:50:38 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:50:38 -0000 Subject: Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176671 Alla: > And of course the main similarity to me is that neither Harry nor Sam > fail AND both of them get the ending of the happy family with kids > and all that. I mean of course Frodo's kindness makes it that in his > falling he wins, etc, but Sam IMO literally never fails, does not > succumb to ring, etc. Magpie: I would agree that Harry and Frodo have little in common, though I don't see much in common between Harry and Sam either. I have trouble with the whole "Sam never fails" idea, because while it's certainly true that he never fails, Sam *would* have failed if he carried the ring as well, because the task itself was impossible. It's not like killing Voldemort where you just have to do the right thing, it's that you *can't* do it unless you are literally God, which Sam was not. I think the scene in the Tower where Sam doesn't initially want to give the ring back because he wants to "spare Frodo the burden" indicates that. Failing was Frodo's mission all along. Still, although Sam never does fail at anything he's an ordinary guy given a task that is very difficult but that he can do and has special skills for and he does it, but he's not put into lots of flashy competitions where he wins all the time like Harry, culminating in slaying the villain. (That said, of the two characters Sam comes across to me as the more competent, but this gets into the two worlds and writers being different etc.) They don't have much in common personality-wise at all, imo, just superficially at least that I can think of. If I was going to compare Sam to anybody in the Potterverse I'd probably choose Neville. (And I don't see much place for Frodo in the Potterverse at all.) -m From Englishlady at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 14:44:40 2007 From: Englishlady at gmail.com (Aryn Culbertson) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 07:44:40 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176672 On 04/09/07, dumbledore11214 wrote: > And of course it was discussed here many times, but I was talking to > somebody offline about HP and LOTR recently and this person made a > remark that he does not think that Harry has many similarities with > Frodo at all. Except that they both go on the quest of course. > > This person thinks that Harry and Sam are much better match, > comparison wise. Neither Harry nor Sam are accepting their destiny > just because they decide to do so. They do it for specific people. > Sam goes initially to protect his friend, and Harry goes to avenge > his parents. Frodo is at least asked to agree, no? Nobody asked > Harry. Ok, now this is just too weird. I have just completed viewing the entire LOTR Extended Versions of all 3 films and had lengthy (no pun intended) discussions of this same thoughts. How strange is that? Though the group did tend to lean more to comparing Frodo to Harry not Sam to Harry. But how odd/weird... The main question really came up was whether or not it really was a quest or just an actual LIFE Path or not. Since it was Harry's Life. And then was it really Frodo's Quest or his actual Life Path? Then the next big discussion, was Ron and Hermione any comparison to Sam? Cheeres (usual Lurker), L. Aryn From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 4 15:15:20 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:15:20 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Florian Fortescue: (was: Peeves / Lily / Slytherins / Ice Cream / ...) Message-ID: <24400212.1188918920211.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176673 Potioncat: >I wonder if Ollivander still thinks He-who-Must-Not-Be-Named is a >great wizard? Bart: Ollivander's mentions of Morty seemed to me to be a mirror of Nation of Islam leader, Louis Farrakhan's 1984 description of Hitler as a great man (qualified by the fact that Hitler did a lot of terrible things). It was heavily publicized in the United States. I do not know how well it was or was not publicized in England. Bart From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 15:27:03 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 11:27:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709040827x4ea2ee41udd494ef8f91edf84@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176674 Magpie: Yes, because Dementors are monsters, basically, while Werewolves are supposed to be like people instead of monsters. (Dementors are "Dark Magic"--worse than just animals going after their natural prey somehow, so that association with them says something hinky about you--magic *isn't* always neutral.) It's not that I don't *see* the difference. But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this kind of punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that the ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that they did something dangerous. Debbie: IMO, the books make clear that the Dementors are foul dark creatures because they feed on the soul. In JKR's world, the soul is presented as the most important thing one owns, and the darkest of Dark Magic involves tampering with the soul; nothing is presented as worse than a Horcrux. Thus, Dementors are the darkest of dark creatures, as Lupin tells us in POA when he makes clear that in the WW having one's soul sucked is much worse than death. JKR's treatment of death and souls seems (unlike lots of other things) quite consistent throughout the series, starting as early as PS/SS, when Dumbledore referred to the afterlife as the next great adventure (admittedly, I bring all of my Christian upbringing to my analysis, but JKR draws on those same sources). Magpie: As is the case where the Twins lock Montague in a Vanishing Cabinet and nobody cares what happens to him. That comes back to bite them, but was it a sign that perhaps the good guys were showing some underlying corruption there? No, it doesn't seem so. The Ministry needed a scolding and a wake-up call about that, but the Twins didn't. Debbie: I personally share your unease about JKR's treatment of Montague and I have sharp differences with JKR on the issues of vengeance and comeuppance humor. However, even if JKR adopted my views on these events and treated them as actionable offenses (though I'm not convinced that what the twins did would not have earned them punishment if they had been discovered), the books make clear that they would be nowhere close on the scale to anything tampering with someone's soul. Students seem to frequently be doing things that land other students in the hospital wing, with the perpetrator getting nothing more than detention. Debbie thinking Dementors are like mosquitoes whereas the Twins are more like bumblebees [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From va32h at comcast.net Tue Sep 4 15:30:40 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:30:40 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176675 I must admit I found this chapter deeply boring. As such, many of the questions asked by our discussion leader simply did not occur to me, because I simply did not care! But I will do my best. > Questions: > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > reaction the first time you read this? No reaction. Harry is frequently locked in his room with food and drink left for him outside his door (he has a cat flap in the door for just this purpose). Did not think anything special of it. > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? It's probably post-Hogwarts training. Students are only supposed to be doing magic at school, where they have access to a nurse, so they don't have a particular need to learn Healing spells. For parchment cuts and the like, surely there is a wizarding object like a bandaid? Hagrid uses bandages on injured animals in the forest, after all. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing > charms? Is he right? Because that is Hermione's function in this book. To know everything so JKR doesn't have to invest the effort in coming up with a more creative/plausible reason for...oh anything, really. Accio Books About Healing Spells! > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > Has he made much progress? If by control, you mean "shove into a deep recess and pretend it's not there" - yes, Harry has made progress. I am not sure why JKR feels this is commendable. She has her hero feel contempt for the tears of others and be reluctant to cry himself. > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. To show us all that she really did mean to tie everything together. See? I remember the Potter Stinks badges! See! All those details really were important! Except not. I imagine JKR scouring the Lexicon, desperately searching for stuff that Harry is still supposed to have at this point. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > welcome!) > > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? > > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? > > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? > > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > always planned for Harry to have this realization? > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? > > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? > > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > the denouement. Any speculation? > > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? > > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > certain truths? Yeah, all this stuff falls into that category of "deeply boring". The articles from Doge and Skeeter were too long. I really didn't care. I wanted a story about Harry, not the moldy old past of Dead Dumbledore. For a dead man, he sure does get a lot of ink in this book. Yes, I thought Harry commenting on his own failure to ask questions was a nod to the reader, in the same way that Snape's conversation with Bella in the Spinner's End chapter of HBP was a way to answer reader questions about Snape's double-agent role. The problem for me was that even though Harry admits he has failed to ask the right questions in the past - he does not do one thing to correct that problem! He does not ask Arthur, Hagrid, Lupin - or anyone else who might have known Dumbledore just a hair better than Harry himself ANYTHING about Dumbledore. He talks to Doge - whose opinion of Dumbledore is already known to Harry, since he read the article. And despite realizing that he knew nothing about his mentor, that Dumbledore lied to him and kept things from him, despite mentally questioning Dumbledore repeatedly, Harry just plods on, dutifully obeying Dumbledore's orders, never wavering, paying lip service to his doubts but never letting those doubts actually affect the way he does anything... Okay, I've gone beyond the scope of this chapter, so I'll stop. But suffice to say - it was lame of JKR to introduce this "questioning Dumbledore" motif when it went nowhere. > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > first time you read the book? Figured it was Aberforth, since he had purchased something from Dung in HBP. Guessed at this point that it was the mirror, not the locket. va32h From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Tue Sep 4 15:49:27 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 15:49:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176676 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH, Chapter 2, > In Memoriam > Rita has produced a 900-page biography just four weeks after > Dumbledore's death and asks how Rita managed it. Rita replies that > she is used to working against a deadline. aussie: 900 pages is bigger than OotP, and JKR knows what time and commitment it took to do that. She has no respect for Rita's writing ability. > Questions: > > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum > as Auror training is? > aussie: First Aid isn't taught at Muggle schools. Any healing can leave scars if not done right. Besides, appart from Harry, students don't go to school expecting to be cut and attacked ... or did I lead a sheltered life? Maybe Harry should have joined the Wizarding Scouts and gone for his First Aid Badge. > > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. > aussie: (from above)... his old Sneakoscope, the RAB locket, ... his wand, potion-making kit, Invisibility Cloak, letters, a few books, the Marauders Map and some keepsakes, including Hagrid's photo album, the enchanted mirror shard. Anything left behind would be analised by Death Eaters. So I think the HBP Potion Book from last year went with him. > > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, ... Do we attribute this to personality or > to "family secrets?" (All speculation welcome!) > aussie: After the attack on his sister, he (and his family) felt victimised and defensive. His mother became very secretive. Also, Grindlewald started their search for Hallows, the biggest secret in Wizarding history. > > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? > aussie: Bathilda would have shared none willingly. If the Potters had her around their house while hiding, she could be trusted to keep secrets. Rita would have used Vertisium, Imperius Curse and hide as an animagus beetle to bug Bathilda's house to get dirt on DD. > > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? > aussie: As I said earlier, Grindelwald came with whispers of the Hallows. There were things no-one, not even Doge knew about those gifted students. > > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? > aussie: Both are right. Grindelwald went ready for a duel and wouldn't have given up the Elder Wand without a fight. But as Hermione says in the Burrow about reversing Horcruxes, a Dark Wizard has to show REMORSE. That was a key word Harry used to Tom in the final duel. It would have been the reason Grindelwald was captured, not killed. DD spoke to his old friend during their battle (as DD did to Tom in MoM and on the Tower to Draco) and because of the younger sister, reached Grindelwald's heart til he showed remorse. "he conjured a handkerchief from his wand and went quietly." > > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore > would have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? > Aussie: DD said "socks" to an 11 year old boy. That was excusable. JKR used DD as a Narrator at times. He had to be factual enough without giving too much away. > > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much > of this do you think has a ring of truth? > Aussie: This was to caste doubt against Harry and his part in accusing Snape while running from the scene of DD's murder. She is always willing to change teams to stay on the winning side. > "DD's relationship with Harry, ...unhealthy, even sinister. She finishes by repeating the accounts that Harry was seen running from the scene of Dumbledore's death and that Harry blames Snape for Dumbledore's death, a man it is well known Harry hates. aussie (thanks Anita) From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 4 17:04:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:04:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry as Frodo or not? Message-ID: <5032101.1188925487745.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176677 Magpie: >I would agree that Harry and Frodo have little in common, though I >don't see much in common between Harry and Sam either. I have trouble >with the whole "Sam never fails" idea, because while it's certainly >true that he never fails, Sam *would* have failed if he carried the >ring as well, because the task itself was impossible. It's not like >killing Voldemort where you just have to do the right thing, it's that >you *can't* do it unless you are literally God, which Sam was not. I >think the scene in the Tower where Sam doesn't initially want to give >the ring back because he wants to "spare Frodo the burden" indicates >that. Failing was Frodo's mission all along. Bart: The part of Tom Bombadil in the LORD OF THE RINGS is twofold. The first is because Tolkein liked the character (the image I like the most is that he is the personification of poetry), a major enough reason that he was left out of the version in the medium-that-must-not-be-named. But a secondary reason was to show a character who could safely hold the ring, and that the very fact that he CAN hold the ring means he WON'T hold the ring. Because only one who has no desire can safely carry the ring, even a desire to rid the world of Sauron. This is a common religious theme; that only through sacrifice of the individual self can one achieve freedom and defeat evil. DD sees that the only way that Morty can be defeated is to for Harry to die; the evidence (notably his look of triumph in GOF) points to his not wanting that result. But he later figures out that the only way that Harry can die, come back, and defeat Voldemort is if Harry dies with pure selflessness. I have two theories as to that, and am not sure which one is better: A) The blood-link means that Harry would be coming back no matter what; the selflessness in dying allows the Mortysoul to separate sufficiently from the Harrysoul to knock it loose. B) Sometimes, in a physical injury, tensing up to defend one's self against the injury can actually make the injury worse (martial artists, for example, protect themselves from injury by "rolling with the blow"). It is not coincidence that, in drunken driving accidents, the least hurt person is often the drunken driver, who does not tense up. Perhaps if Harry did not give himself up 100%, there would have been secondary injuries. Bart From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Tue Sep 4 17:13:42 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:13:42 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176678 > lizzyben: > > This is coming from a big Slytherin defender here - Yes, I believe JKR > created Slytherin as the House of Evil. I agree w/Prepostrus- > everything, everything JKR associated w/Slytherin is bad & negative. > JKR also associates "anti-Muggle" & "pure-blood" prejudice > w/real-world bigotry (via over-the-top Nazi & Klu Klux Klan > references). That's the connection to racism. And then she creates a > house whose *founder* insisted on accepting only those "whose blood is purest", and used a monster to kill Muggle-borns. No, I think it's > safe to say that Slytherin was bad from the get-go. Rowena: As I have said before I disagree with this, nor do I think JKR intends to suggest any such thing. According to the Sorting Hat itself Gryffindor and Slytherin started out as good friends and why on earth would the other three founders have teamed up with a 'Dark Wizard'? Clearly Slytherin did not insist on 'purebloods' only otherwise there would have been no half-bloods like Riddle and Snape in his house. Nor do we really know why he concealed the Basilisk, later legend is not necessarily accurate. It seems to me quite probable that it was intended as a defense againsst a possible Muggle attack on the school aided and abetted by Muggle born students. > lizzyben: > > Yes, the mascot of Slytherin House is a murderer. This shows > Slytherins aren't bad because...? I mean, their own ghost is "bad" - > a symbol of obsessive love, yet! Rowena: A *REPENTENT* murderer a very important point. Does the fact Ravenclaw's ghost was a thief make them 'bad' too? From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 4 17:24:55 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:24:55 -0000 Subject: Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176679 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Aryn Culbertson" wrote: > > On 04/09/07, dumbledore11214 wrote: > > > And of course it was discussed here many times, but I was talking to > > somebody offline about HP and LOTR recently and this person made a > > remark that he does not think that Harry has many similarities with > > Frodo at all. Except that they both go on the quest of course. > > > > This person thinks that Harry and Sam are much better match, > > comparison wise. Neither Harry nor Sam are accepting their destiny > > just because they decide to do so. They do it for specific people. > > Sam goes initially to protect his friend, and Harry goes to avenge > > his parents. Frodo is at least asked to agree, no? Nobody asked > > Harry. > > > Ok, now this is just too weird. I have just completed viewing the entire LOTR Extended Versions of all 3 films and had lengthy (no pun intended) discussions of this same thoughts. How strange is that? Though the group did tend to lean more to comparing Frodo to Harry not Sam to Harry. But how odd/weird... > > The main question really came up was whether or not it really was a quest or just an actual LIFE Path or not. Since it was Harry's Life. And then was it really Frodo's Quest or his actual Life Path? > > Then the next big discussion, was Ron and Hermione any comparison to Sam? > > Cheeres (usual Lurker), > > L. Aryn > Hickengruendler: I think it depends if you consider the characters' personality or the role, they have in the plot. Considering his role in the plot, Harry is both Aragorn and Frodo. Just like Aragorn, he is the character, who searches for his destiny, but instead of becoming King, he gets a more realistic ending in becoming a member of the society he protected. But he is also Frodo, the character troubled with a deep burden, which he has to fulfill, and who is struggling along the way several times. I don't see much similarity in personality between Harry and either of them, though, but much less so with Sam. Personalitywise, the Harry Potter character who comes closest to Sam is IMO definitely Neville. In fact, I find the resemblance that close, that I wonder if JKR did it on purpose, and that Neville's surname (after the Longbottom leaf from LoTR) is no coincidence. Plotwise, both Ron and Hermione, as the loyal friends, who accompany the hero through most of his tasks, are Sam, even though they have a completely different personality than the Hobbit. From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 4 17:30:16 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:30:16 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry as Frodo or not? Message-ID: <9062896.1188927016917.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176680 From: Aryn Culbertson >Then the next big discussion, was Ron and Hermione any comparison to Sam? Well, it depends on how you look at it. It is common in heroic fiction to have three main characters representing (whether or not the author was thinking that way) Ego, Superego, and Id, with the hero usually representing Ego, at least in successful attempts. In Lord of the Rings (where it was probably done more deliberately), Sam is the superego, Frodo is the ego, and Gollum is the Id. In the HP novels, Harry is the Ego, Hermione is the superego, and Ron is the Id. Therefore, from that point of view, Hermione is Sam. I think it was on purpose on the part of JKR, as well. (When you have 4 main characters in fiction, they usually represent the 4 elements). Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 17:42:26 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:42:26 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176681 > Rowena: > > As I have said before I disagree with this, nor do I think JKR > intends to suggest any such thing. According to the Sorting Hat > itself Gryffindor and Slytherin started out as good friends and why > on earth would the other three founders have teamed up with a 'Dark > Wizard'? lizzyben: Dumbledore & Grindelwald were buddies once, that doesn't make Grindelwald a good guy. Rowena: Clearly Slytherin did not insist on 'purebloods' only > otherwise there would have been no half-bloods like Riddle and Snape > in his house. lizzyben: "Said Slytherin, we'll take those whose blood is purest." He did insist on pure-bloods, accepting half-bloods as a presumable second- best when there weren't enough pure-bloods to fill the house. Rowena: Nor do we really know why he concealed the Basilisk, > later legend is not necessarily accurate. It seems to me quite > probable that it was intended as a defense againsst a possible Muggle > attack on the school aided and abetted by Muggle born students. lizzyben: Or maybe he was just an old softie, like Hagrid, and thought the Basilik monster was harmless & just needed a home. :) >From HP Lexicon: "Salazar Slytherin believed that only pure-blood witches and wizards should be allowed to attend Hogwarts. He got into an argument with Godric Gryffindor about this and eventually left the school. There was a legend that Slytherin built a secret chamber somewhere in Hogwarts that only his true heir would be able to open. This chamber, called the Chamber of Secrets, contained a monster that would finish his "noble purpose" of killing all the Muggle-born students at Hogwarts." Killing all muggle-born students was Slytherin's "noble purpose". Oh, and Slytherin also looked "ancient and monkey-like." Just wanted to throw that in there. Contrast this w/the description of Godric Gryffindor: "Godric Gryffindor was the most accomplished dueller of his time, an enlightened fighter against Muggle-discrimination." And "he has mane- like red hair, green eyes, and a powerful build." *swoon* Handsome AND enlightened! > > lizzyben: > > > > Yes, the mascot of Slytherin House is a murderer. This shows > > Slytherins aren't bad because...? I mean, their own ghost is "bad" - > > a symbol of obsessive love, yet! > > Rowena: > > A *REPENTENT* murderer a very important point. Does the fact > Ravenclaw's ghost was a thief make them 'bad' too? lizzyben: Since Ravenclaw hasn't been associated with evil, darkness, racism, deadly monsters and the murder of innocent students... I'm going to say no. Whereas Slytherin is all of these things, and PLUS their mascot is a murderer. It's basically JKR shouting at readers "Slytherins are BAD! Got it??" In interviews, she seems honestly mystified that anyone would like Slytherins. And when she found out some fans self-identified as Slytherins, she said that she was *shocked* and *disturbed*. Does that sound like she thinks Slytherin is just another House? Or just a personality type? No, she reacts as if people were self-identifying as Nazis or something, because that's what Slytherin represents to her. That's why she says the books are about "tolerance." Slytherins are the evil, racist, intolerant people that the good, enlightened, tolerant people can beat up to show how enlightened they are. We're not supposed to be *tolerant* of Slytherins at all. lizzyben From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 4 17:49:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 13:49:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ministry and Dementors/ Message-ID: <4142789.1188928152409.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176682 From: elfundeb >Magpie: >Yes, because Dementors are monsters, basically, while Werewolves are >supposed to be like people instead of monsters. (Dementors are "Dark >Magic"--worse than just animals going after their natural prey >somehow, so that association with them says something hinky about >you--magic *isn't* always neutral.) It's not that I don't *see* the >difference. But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this >kind of punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that >the ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that >they did something dangerous. > >Debbie: >IMO, the books make clear that the Dementors are foul dark creatures because >they feed on the soul. In JKR's world, the soul is presented as the most >important thing one owns, and the darkest of Dark Magic involves tampering >with the soul; nothing is presented as worse than a Horcrux. Thus, >Dementors are the darkest of dark creatures, as Lupin tells us in POA when >he makes clear that in the WW having one's soul sucked is much worse than >death. JKR's treatment of death and souls seems (unlike lots of other >things) quite consistent throughout the series, starting as early as PS/SS, >when Dumbledore referred to the afterlife as the next great adventure >(admittedly, I bring all of my Christian upbringing to my analysis, but JKR >draws on those same sources). Bart: Something which has bothered me since the Dementors were introduced (btw, the Dementors are depicted as having very low intelligence, possibly even on a barely trained animal level) is the level of punishment Azkaban is, and that there seems to be little or no "in between". Hagrid is placed in Azkaban for months on mere suspicion of committing a crime, although the crime with which he is charged is reckless endangerment, yet, as has been shown, it can easily be a death sentence. Also, paradoxically, it appears that the more evil the criminal, the less interested the Dementors are in their souls (Sirius gets away by becoming a dog), as their souls are in bad shape to begin with. The imprisoned Death Eaters are at full power, yet, Mrs. Crouch, who is there in the name of love, gets eaten quickly, and DD Sr., who was thrown in for 3 years IIRC, for a crime which, in his mind, is justified, gets eaten relatively quickly as well. What kind of justice is this? Bart From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 4 18:02:04 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:02:04 -0000 Subject: Alchemy, the Epilogue and Slytherin (long) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709021427y186fe7f8id6f22fca3724ffc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176683 > Julie wrote: > It would have been more balanced if even *one* Slytherin had used his/her > traits toward something good. Snape used what is commonly considered > a Gryffindor trait, courage, to prove his (relative) goodness. (Cunning may > have come into it a bit--for instance Snape punishing the Gryffs in DH by > sending them to the Forbidden Forest--but both Dumbledore and Harry > note that Snape's *best* trait was his un-Slytherinish courage.) Regulus > also used courage, and loyalty to another--Kreacher, also not standard > Slytherin traits. Hickengruendler: Harry used Slytherin traits quite often, most notably, when he got the memory from Slughorn. Admittingly, he isn't a Slytherin, but what he used to get this memory certainly wasn't Gryffindor courage. Same for Dumbledore, who has Slytherin traits and used them as well, so did Hermione, when she got rid of Umbridge. And I think Snape had to be very cunning, to make Voldemort believe in his status as an agent for Voldie's side. Yes, he had to be brave as well, but this task could not have been done by someone, who is just brave and not cunning. From xellina at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 18:07:52 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 22:07:52 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00709041107x2243aa79ra5dfbfbbe817b70f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176684 Really nice questions! > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > reaction the first time you read this? Before I read Harry's thoughts about it, I simply reconed that it was tea someone brought for Harry to drink. It seemed a very strange choice for a prank, anyway. > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? I think that it really is a flaw in curriculum. Even if healing charms themselves are too advanced for the majority students to perform, it would not hurt to know about their existence. I don't know in wich NEWT level course they might fit, I think there sjould just be a seperate course. And they surely must teach it somewhere post-Hogrwards, most probably in some kind of apprentice practice at St. Mungo's. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing > charms? Is he right? I suppose that Harry is used to Hermione knowing *everything*, so he just assumes that she would know about those as well. > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > Has he made much progress? Well, judging by the relative easiness with which Harry shuts and opens his mental connection with LV, he made an enomorous progress. > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. No idea, honestly. I didn't pay much attention at the time, to be honest. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > welcome!) IMHO, the combination of the two. Given his family history, there's no wonder he learmed to keep secrets, but he might have a natural inclination to. It also might be, that he, being much brighter than people around him, grew up to beleive that he knew best in all situations. And what's the point of sharing your troubles if you don't need an advice or any kind of assistance? After all, that's what Harry does as well: he prefers to solve his problems himself in many situations, not asking for help, most of the time believing he doesn't need any help. > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? I don't think that early correspodance between those two was actually anything more that academical discussions and thus, not particulary interesting for the general reader. > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? None, I presume. > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Grindewald doesn't struck me as a type who would go quitely. Why should he? But this duel must be less dramatic that Harry's with LV in terms that it wasn't a case of life and death. Grindelwald survived, though was imprisoned and, maybe, even if he won, he wouldn't have killed Dumbledore "for the old times sake". Those two were not mortal enemies, after all. > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > always planned for Harry to have this realization? I think it was planned anyway. After all, Harry has to realize that he lacks significant information then he stumbles across questions unanswered and no reaction from the readers would have made JRK to provide hero with info too early or too easy. Dumbles only tells him, that we, readers, need to know. > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? I doubt it. Dumbledore has never been really sincere with Harry while alive. Or, I believe, with anybody else. > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? I hope that some of her dirt on Dumbledore was true, mainly because I never really liked the man, seeing him as a shameless manipulator. no offence to Dumbledore fans meant. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > the denouement. Any speculation? Maybe it is just a red herring. Probably we were supposed to believe that it could be somehow used to destroy Horcruxes? > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? SPOILER for Ch 33 The Prince's Tale: (after telling Snape that Harry must be killed by Voldemort) Dumbledore opened his eyes. Snape looked horrified. "You have kept him alive so that he can die at the right moment?" - how more unhealthy can a relationship get? ^_~ Seriously, imho, Dumbledore deliberately had put Harry in danger on many occasions (most obviously in PS and GoF), so yes, the relationship is not exactly normal. > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > certain truths? Doge is honest, since he speak his true feelings. I don't think that he withholds thruth, more that he doesn't accept it and ignores any facts that might tarnish Dumbledore's golden image. > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > first time you read the book? "Oh no, not communicating wth the dead!" From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 18:10:00 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 18:10:00 -0000 Subject: Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176685 > > Alla: > > And of course the main similarity to me is that neither Harry nor Sam > > fail AND both of them get the ending of the happy family with kids > > and all that. I mean of course Frodo's kindness makes it that in his > > falling he wins, etc, but Sam IMO literally never fails, does not > > succumb to ring, etc. > Magpie: > I would agree that Harry and Frodo have little in common, though I > don't see much in common between Harry and Sam either. I have trouble > with the whole "Sam never fails" idea, because while it's certainly > true that he never fails, Sam *would* have failed if he carried the > ring as well, because the task itself was impossible. It's not like > killing Voldemort where you just have to do the right thing, it's that > you *can't* do it unless you are literally God, which Sam was not. I > think the scene in the Tower where Sam doesn't initially want to give > the ring back because he wants to "spare Frodo the burden" indicates > that. Failing was Frodo's mission all along. zeldaricdeau: I'd like to second Magpie's assertion that Sam never fails because he is never given the opportunity to fail like Frodo is. Sam, like Frodo, *would* have succumb to the Ring had he worn it as long as Frodo had. His ambitions with it would have been in direct proportion to his ambitions without it which may have been less than Frodo's ambitions but would still have been Ring-induced and therefore corrupted. Also, Frodo may fail the impossible task but he accomplishes the human and Christian one that ends up saving the day in the end: he pities Gollum. I'd also like to state that Sam DOES fail in this: he never pities Gollum as Frodo does. It's a combination of pity, chance, and self-sacrifice that brings the Ring to its end, but I think the book's moral structure hinges on the pity. Pity saves the world in Tolkien's universe for had Frodo not pitied Gollum, Gollum would not have been there to fall in his ecstasy with the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom. Had Bilbo not pitied Gollum, Gollum would never have lived to set the events of LotR in motion. It's one of the reasons I think the Return of the King in the medium-that-must-not-be-named fails ultimately: it substitutes gullibility for pity. To bring this back around to the topic of the list :-) I honestly think Tolkien was working in a far more carefully constructed moral universe than Rowling, who I think contradicts herself morally far too often, and this makes comparisons difficult. I don't think there's any direct reflection of Frodo or Sam in Harry, although there may be some more abstract correlations between LotR and HP. Harry sacrifices himself and feels pity like Frodo, and he ends up with the happy "all is well" family that Sam does, but I think the similarities stop here. As for those more general or thematic correlations: Harry, having felt pity, offers Riddle a chance at redemption by telling him to try for some remorse. If this somehow throws Voldemort off-balance in that moment such that he misjudges and brings about his own downfall then I'd say there's a LotR/HP correlation there and maybe even a Frodo/Harry one. But that confrontation seems muddied in terms of moral message (more on this below) so I feel like I have to force a correlation there. Perhaps more viable is the fact that Voldemort, like Sauron, fails to protect his ambitions because he can no longer understand the inner workings of people. Sauron couldn't conceive of anyone wanting to destroy his Ring (that is, refusing power) much less walking into certain death to do so (self-sacrifice). It's ludicrous to Voldemort that Snape, his "right hand man," could have possibly been a traitor to him for all these years at the cost of his life and happiness for LOVE of all things. Likewise, it's ludicrous that Dumbledore would choose to DIE at a certain time to further the fight. He also can't envision a Neville Longbottom who would continue to fight in the face of such utter defeat and thus kills Nagini. But does this lack of understanding account for his demise? I think there's a stronger "yes" possible here, but I'm not totally sold on it. Back to the last confrontation. Harry proclaims many things to Voldemort, offers him pity, and taunts him. I've still not settled on a good reason for why he does everything he does here. The fact that Voldemort is utterly defeated because of an accidental change in allegiance of a wand makes his defeat pathetic in a sense, but the visual imagery is grand to the extreme (the sun rising in the enchanted ceiling). Certainly he was diminished and made mortal again by an act of self-sacrificial love among other things, but his death is the result of chance almost exclusively. One might argue that Harry's bravery was a key as well since Harry didn't know whether the wand would recognize the allegiance change or not, but this seems shaky to me as a pointer towards a moral message. All of this extraordinarily confusing post is to say that without a clearer sense of the moral message in HP I have a hard time seeing Frodo/Sam reflected in Harry. zeldaricdeau (who thinks the most obvious and rather annoying Tolkien reference was the whole wearing the locket/carrying the Ring makes you bad bit: why on Earth did they have to WEAR it anyway?) From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 19:18:46 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:18:46 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176686 > > Rowena: > > A *REPENTENT* murderer a very important point. Prep0strus: Sure, well, it's that Slytherins are evil, but can sometimes work their way back to be a little less than evil. The Baron still has to wear the stains of his crime the rest of his life. And he's also not exactly the most pleasant figure in the castle. Repentance only goes so far. A repentant murderer is all well and good, but it's not exactly the same as a *NEVER* murderer. Makes me wonder how symbolic it is the ghost of Griffindor being a guy who gets his neck hacked into 46 times without every quite losing his head. Could be a parallel for Harry. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 20:06:48 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 20:06:48 -0000 Subject: PICTURES AT HOGWARTS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176687 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > "jennifer" wrote: > > snip > > Why couldn't Dumbledore visit Phinellias Black's > > portrait in Deathly Hallows? He said that they > > could commune with each other but that he could > > not bring Dumbledore into his portrait. This is > > very confusing because if other paintings could > > visit each other then why couldn't the > > headmasters not visit each other's pictures? > > > Potioncat: > My understanding is that Portrait!DD could visit any > of his own portraits where ever they were; he could > visit any portrait at Hogwarts; but he couldn't travel > via someone else's portrait out of Hogwarts. > bboyminn: Right, let's see if I can come up with a better illustration. Dumbledore COULD visit Phineas Nigellus portrait at Hogwarts, but he could NOT use that portrait as a path to 12 Grimmauld Place. You can wander among the portraits at any location that has your portrait, but you can not go to a place that does not also contain your portrait. So, Dumbledore could visit Phineas at Hogwarts because the both have portraits there, but Dumbledore could not come by portrait to 12 Grimmauld Place because Dumbledore does not have a portrait there. The path between portraits only works in a location which contains the portraits. So, Phineas and Dumbledore can visit each other at Hogwarts. The portrait path between locations only works for a wizard who has portraits in BOTH locations. So, Dumbledore has no way to get to The Black House because he doesn't have a portrait there. Consequently, Dumbledore can not use Phineas's path to 12 Grimmauld Place. That is a road that is closed to him. Does that make sense? Steve/bboyminn From PenapartElf at aol.com Tue Sep 4 17:07:13 2007 From: PenapartElf at aol.com (penapart_elf) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:07:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176688 "AnitaKH" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, > Chapter 2, In Memoriam > > The chapter opens with Harry in his bedroom at Privet Drive. Petra: Just to quickly note that on my first read this chapter title threw me for a bit of a loop. "A Memoriam for a character whom we barely know?!" I had thought that I was about to read Burbage's backstory, seeing as she had just died in the page before chapter two started. Potioncat wrote: > Thank you Penapart-Elf for a thoughtful set of questions! Petra: Actually, all thanks for the questions and the summary should go to "AnitaKH" a.k.a. akh, who's an old hand now at leading chapter discussions. :) My fingerprint on the chapdisc is regrettably indelible... Petra a n :) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Sep 4 21:39:11 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:39:11 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176689 > Alla: > > I guess I just do not see the arbitraririty that you are talking > about. If nothing else to me it is clear that Dementors are the worst > thing ever and it is horrible for the Ministry to associate with > them, and keep them as punishment, because it deals with spiritual > staff, NOT physical and it was always crystal clear to me that book > places far more emphasis on the spiritual staff and not physical > danger to once' person Magpie: Well, yeah. The spiritual is nebulous. It's worse because it hurts "the soul" which is an important...nebulous thing. The trouble is that I see the potential for the same sign of trouble in other things and don't just draw the line at harming the soul. The very "underlying corruption" JKR says the Dementors point to in the Ministry has been seen (and described in similar terms) by various readers as existing in other places, so it's understandable that to readers like that (like me) this distinction falls flat. Especially since the stuff we saw earlier and worried about seemed more interesting because it was moral danger to the characters we cared about and this is just another example of other people falling short of their example again. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 21:57:00 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 21:57:00 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176690 > > Alla: > > > > I guess I just do not see the arbitraririty that you are talking > > about. If nothing else to me it is clear that Dementors are the > worst > > thing ever and it is horrible for the Ministry to associate with > > them, and keep them as punishment, because it deals with spiritual > > staff, NOT physical and it was always crystal clear to me that > book > > places far more emphasis on the spiritual staff and not physical > > danger to once' person > > Magpie: > Well, yeah. The spiritual is nebulous. It's worse because it > hurts "the soul" which is an important...nebulous thing. The trouble > is that I see the potential for the same sign of trouble in other > things and don't just draw the line at harming the soul. The > very "underlying corruption" JKR says the Dementors point to in the > Ministry has been seen (and described in similar terms) by various > readers as existing in other places, so it's understandable that to > readers like that (like me) this distinction falls flat. Especially > since the stuff we saw earlier and worried about seemed more > interesting because it was moral danger to the characters we cared > about and this is just another example of other people falling short > of their example again. Alla: You know me, I do not mean it to sound dismissive, but I am afraid it still may come out that way. Truly and honestly, it is just I simply do not know how to phrase it better. What is whether you draw the line at harming the soul has to do with the original point as I understood it to be? Weren't you saying originally that you were wondering why in the books the Dementors in general and Dementors in Azkaban specifically are portrayed as the worst punishment ever? Weren't you saying that it comes out as arbitrarily to you and that is why it is arbitrarily to you that it is so bad for Ministry to associate with them? That you were wondering why the good guys will draw the line there and not at any other punishments? ( paraphrasing) Well, I thought that I described how to me it is not arbitrarily at all within the *books** moral system. Weren't you wondering about consistency of **books** moral system? What does that have to do with your moral system? I mean, I am trying to say that to consider books moral system **consistent** you really do not have to **like** it IMO, just see consistency in there. And even though you do not draw the line at harming the soul, isn't the point that **books** IMO consistently draw the line exactly there and accordingly portray a very consistent theme? If you disagree with this assertion, I would love to see some examples that books do not draw the line at harming the soul, that this is something that is taken casually or something that good guys do or approve, please? I mean, obviously books moral system does not resonate with you. It does resonate with me very deeply, but I really do not think that whether you dislike it or I like it should matter in deciding whether the Dementors as the worst thing ever is arbitrarily or not. IMO of course. I thought the point of that was whether basically Dementors are thrown at the reader **out of left field** as the worst thing in Potterverse or NOT. I think I run out of words and examples to describe the consistency ( and to me beauty of such consistency) that sucking one's soul is indeed the worst thing that can happen to **anybody** in Potterverse and accordingly why Good guys will never do that. So, I guess unless I find something else to say later, I am bowing out for now. Alla. From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 22:19:30 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:19:30 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176691 > Mike: > All I can suggest is a common sense approach. When someone uses a > spell for school boy pranks, something that won't have lasting > *physical* effects, we shouldn't read that as Dark, imo. I say > physical because trying to judge emotional is way too subjective and > takes into account way too many variables that cannot be assigned > simply to the spell. zeldaricdeau: You may not count this information as valuable for discussion since it comes from her interviews, but what does this definition then say about what was done to Marietta who retains permanent scarring from the effects of the pimple-producing spell? taken from Mugglenet: "Louie: Did mariettas pimply formation ever fade J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor!" Should we assume it's ok because she deserved it? Or perhaps because it only left a "few" scars? Where do we draw the line? -ZR From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 4 22:27:44 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:27:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176692 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AnitaKH" wrote: > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > reaction the first time you read this? Allie: I thought that Dudley had left him a cup of tea as a nice gesture. If Dudley wanted to leave a booby-trap outside Harry's door, surely he would have used something larger than a teacup! > > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? Allie: I actually wondered why Harry forgot all about the healing charm he already knew, Episkey. If it was good enough to fix his bloody nose and someone else's bloody lip, it certainly would have worked on his finger. Short-term memory loss by Harry or by JKR. Into what subject would "healing spells" fall? Charms? From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 22:28:10 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:28:10 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176693 > Alla: >> I mean, obviously books moral system does not resonate with you. It > does resonate with me very deeply, but I really do not think that > whether you dislike it or I like it should matter in deciding whether > the Dementors as the worst thing ever is arbitrarily or not. IMO of > course. Alla: Grrrr, have to clarify. The harming soul as the worst thing ever resonates with me very deeply. I did not mean to say that everything in the books does. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 4 22:29:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 22:29:17 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176694 CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 2, In Memoriam > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your reaction the first time you read this? Carol: Probably, "Huh?' or "What the--?" I don't recall thinking anything specific. I certainly didn't think that Dudley had left it there as a placatory gesture. > > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as Auror training is? Carol: Definitely a flaw in the curriculum, but then, they've never has a standard curriculum for DADA, assuming that healing cuts counts as a defensive spell. If it's a charm, it should be taught around the fourth year, when the kids have developed some responsibility and skill. BTW, if Dumbledore had used a verbal rather than a nonverbal spell to heal his knife cut in the cave scene, Harry would already know the spell and could perhaps recall the wand movement. (The complex countercurse that Snape used to heal Draco was, IMO, altogether different and perhaps unique to that curse.) If the spell is taught at NEWT level, Harry certainly didn't learn it, but Snape was concentrating on practical defense to prepare the students to fight DEs. Not sure what Flitwick was focusing on (nonverbal charms, yes, but I can't remember what kind.) My reaction on reading the scene was to wonder whether Harry would need the spell later, and apparently he does. Even Hermione can't fully repair Ron's splinched arm (dittany has advanced from preventing scarring to stopping bleeding, yet another inconsistency between HBP and DH). I wondered when I reread this scene whether a spell to stop bleeding, combined with dittany, could have saved Snape, but perhaps Nagini's venom would have prevented him from healing. Phoenix tears might have been the only remedy, and Fawkes was gone. Maybe the scene was only intended to call attention to the broken mirror, but I can't help feeling that it foreshadows something sinister. As for learning healing in Auror training, I would hope that it's a standard part of the Auror curriculum, like "Episkey" to fix a broken nose (Tonks in HBP). > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing charms? Is he right? Carol: Harry thinks that Hermione knows everything (except Dark Arts) and she certainly knows a lot of protective spells that older wizards like Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell don't seem to know, but if she knew a spell to stop bleeding, she could probably have cured Ron's splinching faster and more effectively. As it is, he seems to have been left with a hunk of flesh scooped out of his arm but the skin healed over it. And she either can't save Snape or doesn't try (though she does conjure a vial to contain his memories). At any rate, I don't think that Hermione is a healer, and no one has taught her the simple spell that DD uses to heal his hand. Definitely, a flaw in the curriculum somewhere. > > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? Has he made much progress? Carol: In contrast to accidental magic like blowing up Aunt Marge in Poa and yelling at his friends when they oppose him or throwing things in Dumbledore's office in OoP, Harry is getting pretty good at controlling his emotions from HBP onward. I'm guessing that the contest of wills with Umbridge in OoP helped him learn to keep his anger in check. (Maybe the consequences of running off to the MoM half-cocked did, too.) He doesn't like the distrust and resentment of Dumbledore that these articles arouse in him, but balling up the article and throwing it and bellowing "Lies!" out the window is at least a less violent reaction to his emotions than we've seen in the past. I think the flash of blue that he imagines as Dumbledore's eye (really Aberforth's, of course) stops his emotions in their tracks. Even his hatred of Snape and his desire for vengeance seem to be reasonably under control in DH, so I'd say that, yes, Harry is making progress toward controlling his emotions, more so than Ron or Hermione (who, of course, have not yet appeared in DH at this point). > > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several reappear, but not all. Carol: Interesting question! I think she wants us to see what he values (e.g., the photo album) and possibly, what he thinks may be useful. Of course, there's an element of foreshadowing, too, and she always mixes important items (the locket in OoP, the Vanishing Cabinet and tiara in HBP) in with insignificant items. Of course, the fake locket, the wand, and the Invisibility Cloak will obviously prove important, but I was surprised that he'd take the Marauder's Map and his potion-making kit (the latter of which wasn't even used, and what good is it without his cauldron)? And BTW, why in the world would he have a "Support Cedric Diggory" badge in his trunk, especially when they were made by Draco Malfoy specifically to insult him? Anyway, I think that naming the items is a reminder of scenes from past books, much better than the clumsy exposition near the beginning of CoS and PoA intended to fill in the backstory for readers unfamiliar with earlier books. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation welcome!) Carol: Well, the "more reserved" comment relates to the eighteen-year-old Albus that Elphias encounters when he returns from his world tour, not to the boy he knew at Hogwarts. Still, though, the schoolboy Albus didn't talk about his father other than to admit that he was guilty (he could have defended him, but evidently his mother doesn't want the circumstances known and neither did Percival himself, to protect Arizna), nor did he talk about Ariana while she was alive other than to say (as his mother taught him and Aberforth) that she was too frail to go to school (which is, of course, a cover story). By the time Elphias returns, Albus has still more to cover up: the circumstances involving her death as well as their mother's, his brief friendship with Grindelwald, his flirtation with the idea of using magic to control Muggles for "the greater good," and his breach with Aberforth (though he chooses not to heal his own broken nose--as a permanent reminder of his own folly?) Far from trusting too readily, he doesn't trust at all, not even his devoted friend, Elphias, who sees DD as something like a saint to the end of DD's days. Aberforth says later that Albus learned secrecy at our mother's knee and that he was a natural (paraphrased from memory). I think that both are true. However, had Ariana not been attacked by the Muggle boys and their father not arrested for retaliating, none of the other events would have happened--even the friendship with Grindelwald, whom he would not have met if the family had remained in Mould-on-the Wold (charming name!). It's hard to say what kind of person DD would have been had he not learned these bitter lessons about himself so early in life and had so many secrets, including a heavy burden of guilt, to conceal. Would he have been more open with Harry if these things hadn't happened? Would he have trusted young Snape if he had not made mistakes himself in his youth? Impossible to say. Personally, I think that if he'd had a normal childhood (if the attack on Ariana hadn't happened, his parents and Ariana had survived in an intact family, and the breach with Aberforth hadn't occurred), he'd have ended up as Minister of Magic and never become headmaster of Hogwarts at all. > > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? Carol: I think the letter to his dear friend Gellert is all we would get if we could read the whole biography. Nothing else would have been scandalous enough for Rita to print. (I love having a photograph of that letter appear in the biography later, irrefutable evidence of the Grindelwald connection.) BTW, it's odd that Bathilda would preserve that letter considering what her great-nephew later became! > > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? Carol: He didn't know anything about it, having left for the continent right after Kendra's death. He comes back in time for Ariana's funeral, but by that time, Gellert has already fled the scene. The only reference to Grindelwald in his obituary is DD's victory in the 1945 duel (which Rita Skeeter has tantalizingly suggested involved GG's conjuring a white flag). Later (in "The Wedding") Elphias talks about Ariana, but Grindelwald isn't discussed. I don't think he has any idea that Albus and Gellert were once friends. > > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Carol: Rita is insinuating that she knows something about the relationship between Dumbledore and Grindelwald (and possibly the reasons why it took so long for DD to actually duel with him). She has an ace up her sleeves--the boyhood friendship, complete with that incriminating letter--but she wants people to read the book, so is only providing tantalizing hints. But, no, she's not right about the duel itself. We know that DD somehow won the "unbeatable" Elder Wand. We know from OoP that Dumbledore is marvelously skilled at duelling Dark wizards without killing or being killed. And there were evidently eye witnesses (not that eye witnesses in these books always know what they're seeing, but I don't see how they could mistake a wizarding duel for anything else (or vice versa). Dead!DD himself says in "King's Cross" that he won the duel and that he was "a shade more skillful" than Grindelwald (DH Am. ed. 718) though he doesn't provide details. So Rita is right that Albus and Gellert were friends but wrong (IMO) that Grindelwald willingly surrendered to Dumbledore. I'm pretty sure that both of them would want to show off their skills, seeing the duel as a challenge, a contest of power and skill. And Grindelwald would have been sure that he was unbeatable given his mastery of the Elder Wand (a subject I don't want to stray onto!) > > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had always planned for Harry to have this realization? Carol: Hm. She certainly didn't want Harry to ask questions about DD or her revelations would be ruined, and I'm sure that she's aware of readers' annoyance on the matter, but it's an established character trait (way back in SS/PS, IIRC, the narrator states that the first rule of living with the Dursleys was "Don't ask questions"). And Harry is understandably rather self-centered in the sense of being preoccupied with his own concerns and predicaments. Almost the only person he asks questions about is Professor Snape, and usually he gets responses like "That is a matter between Professor Snape and myself, Harry." He never asks his friends (except Ron) about their homelife and consequently is surprised to learn (in GoF) why Neville was raised by his grandmother. He seldom even asks about his own parents, especially his mother. It's not at all surprising that he never asks Dumbledore about his personal life ("Why didn't you ever marry, sir?" or "Where did you live when you were a kid?"). And when the subject of DD's brother comes up (in GoF), DD himself dismisses him by saying that he's not even sure that Aberforth can read. (Boo, Albus! Low blow!) Besides, Harry, like most teenagers, seems to think that DD was born old (or else "back in the dinosaur age," to quote someone I know). > > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? Carol: Nil. None. Zilch. Zero. "That is a matter between me and myself, Harry." Well, maybe he would have admitted a Godric's Hollow connection if Harry had asked, but since he refused to talk with his friends about his father or Ariana and made disparaging remarks about Aberforth, I don't think he'd have been very informative. The duel with Grindelwald he might have talked about, but that was public knowledge. And his favorite flavor of jam or his interest in chamber music and ten-pin bowling. Important stuff like that. > > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? Carol responds: There was just enough overlap between her version of DD's life and Doge's to make me think that the truth lay somewhere in between. The references to Aberforth and Grindelwald and DD's broken nose made me anticipate revelations of some sort, but in a distorted form if they came from Rita. (As an aside, I liked her directing suspicion of DD's murder away from Severus Snape--it made me realize that Snape was not Undesirable Number One in the WW as I had anticipated he'd be after HBP. Of course, her shifting suspicion to Harry was obviously Rita Skeeter through and through, but I was curious as to how Snape had escaped being a wanted fugitive when LV had not yet taken over the Ministry.) Anyway, Harry's desire for "the truth" about Dumbledore is supposed to reflect or arouse a similar desire on the part of the reader. Harry seizes every scrap of information he can find though he's a bit slow in fitting the pieces together. (Where have I seen that golden-haired boy before? Hmmm.) With Snape, in contrast, Harry thinks he already knows the truth so he doesn't recognize the clues when he sees or hears them. > > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into the denouement. Any speculation? Carol: Something to do with healing, maybe, since Hagrid uses a raw dragon steak to heal his bruises in OoP. But, then, putting raw steak against a black eye is a fairly well-known Muggle remedy, so it's rather like Lupin's use of chocolate, a well-known Muggle "cure" for depression (till the fat cells or pimples make you even more depressed). I posted in message 168475 about the medicinal uses of the *plant* dragon's blood as possibly providing some clues to DD's twelve uses of the creatures' actual blood, but only one person responded. (The resin of the plant "is used for power, purification, protection, consecration and ritual energy," if anyone is interested. More details can be found by clicking links in the original post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/168475 > > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this do you think has a ring of truth? Carol: Another good question. Maybe Harry's anger is in part a response to a nagging suspicion that she's right. Of course, it's unclear how much Rita knows or suspects or exactly what she wants her readers to think. We know that she talked with Draco and his friends in GoF. I think it's very likely that Draco charged Dumbledore with favoritism (not without cause). She also knows that DD allowed (or could not prevent) Harry's participation as an underage contestant in a highly dangerous tournament, not to mention what happened afterwards, revealed to her in an exclusive interview during OoP. "A most troubled adolescence" doesn't begin to describe it, and it's certainly true that "Dumbledore took an unnatural interest in Potter from the word go" (27). DD has a plan centering on Harry, which he admits in OoP. But if he hadn't taken such an interest in Harry, testing and preparing him and eventually revealing the Prophecy (while still withholding bits of the truth until the very end), how could Harry have faced Voldemort, who would have gone after him to kill him no matter what? > > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold certain truths? Carol: "Darling Dodgy" is fervent in his admiration but also honest, telling all he knows (which happens to be favorable to DD in all cases). The problem is, DD has not been honest with *him*, and there are important gaps in his knowledge, especially of the crucial two months when Elphias was on the world tour that he and Albus would have taken together if Kendra hadn't been killed. Skeeter doesn't have an honest bone in her insect body, but she does have access to information that Doge doesn't have (obtained, in may cases, through illicit or disreputable means). Skeeter deliberately withholds information to tantalize her readers (she wants them to buy the book), but she also hints and distorts and insinuates in her usual style in both the article and the book itself. Doge, admittedly, doesn't want to hear anything bad about his hero, but I don't think he deliberately distorts or withholds any information. He honestly believes that Dumbledore was a paragon of virtue rather than the flawed and manipulative but primarily well-intentioned human being that we see at the end. Too bad he never had a heart-to-heart talk with Aberforth! > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the first time you read the book? Carol: I's hard to remember first reactions, especially to a book that I was devouring at top speed to find out what happened and who died and why Snape killed Dumbledore. I *think* I suspected that it was DD somehow peering through the Veil even though I knew that he was really dead and that Sirius Black had been unable to use the other mirror after his death (assuming that he had it with him). The answer was there in the chapter plain as day with all the references to Aberforth, whom I knew would be a character in the book, but I don't think I stopped long enough to put two and two together. I was reading emotionally, not analytically, and waiting for something exciting or scary to happen. Thanks for the thought-provoking questions! Carol, who has not read anyone else's responses because she didn't want them to influence her own From ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 4 21:33:24 2007 From: ffred_clegg at yahoo.co.uk (Ffred Clegg) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:33:24 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Dumbledore's age Message-ID: <680650.88036.qm@web25606.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176695 Random832 wrote: >Why not just NOT write a book that depends on mathematical formulas, >birthdates, etc.? I'm a bit confused with your assertion that the HP >series _does_ to any significant extent depend on such things. > >The reason it gets so much emphasis in fandom is because it's easy - >every amateur critic can jump in and look up the full moons for 1993, or >days of the week, or where mars was, and they can provide hard PROOF for >how this is a mistake, so no-one can argue with them like they can for >ships or snape or anything else. It's a cheap shot. Put simply, it's lame. > >To a lesser extent, so do arguments based on the interview quotes. So is >it any surprise that we see those issues get so much play on forums nad >lists like this one? Indeed so. When JKR said something to the effect of "don't trust me on the maths", I took her at her word. Where the books are intuitive and creative and leave the detail to our imaginations, every detail works perfectly. Where JKR tries to resolve imagined discrepancies based on the questioning of people with challenged imaginations, suddenly the whole thing becomes full of contradictions and impossibilities (ones that even magic cannot resolve). What "works"? A Dumbledore in his 150s? Yes. Make Auntie Muriel 207 rather than 107, it makes her more believable. But don't trust JKR on the maths. hwyl Ffred ___________________________________________________________ Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it now. http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/ From Meliss9900 at aol.com Tue Sep 4 23:33:26 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:33:26 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176696 In a message dated 9/4/2007 5:30:49 P.M. Central Daylight Time, justcarol67 at yahoo.com writes: I wondered when I reread this scene whether a spell to stop bleeding, combined with dittany, could have saved Snape, but perhaps Nagini's venom would have prevented him from healing. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I really that Snape was a goner from the moment Nagini bit him.. Remember when Arthur was bitten in OOTP he to keep taking a blood replenishing potion and the Healers couldn't remove the bandages because he'd start bleeding all over again. Melissa ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 4 23:53:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 19:53:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DDEFE9.3020101@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176697 prep0strus wrote: > so far. A repentant murderer is all well and good, but it's not > exactly the same as a *NEVER* murderer. Bart: Actually, in most branches of Christianity, it is. Bart From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 01:33:06 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 01:33:06 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176698 Hey Group, I'm new and noticed that you talk about the role of Snape a bit and I wanted to re-examine in the strata of modern literature as a whole as I think he is the most important literary figure in the books and we will more than likely see him emulated down the road. My overall thought after reading Deathly Hallows is as follows. With all of the HP series, Rowling uses timeless archetypes to fill out her stories. If you take the obviousness of Star Wars you can see this quite clearly. Take the SAT Route: Harry Potter Series is to Star wars as: Harry = Luke Skywalker (the young hero) Dumbledore = Ben Kenobi (learned master) Hagrid = Chewbacca (loyal retainer) And so on and so forth, etc, etc. However, and what I have been racking my brain about is "Where does Snape fit in this equation?" Not Star Wars mind you but as an archetypal character? I have been racking my brain about him and I can't seem to locate one. The closest I come is close to an anti-hero but it doesn't quite fit, does it? A good example of modern anti-hero is Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver. But Snape always does the right thing throughout the course of the books. Maybe not his past history, but through the series he does, yes? So he is good, but he can't allow people to know. Why? Therein is the issue I think. Anyways, just thought I'd share. Given the popularity of the books, I think we will see this come up again and again in the not so distant future. JP Smith Graduate Student University of Southern California From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Sep 5 02:38:05 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 02:38:05 -0000 Subject: DD and Harry (was Re:CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: <259098.15752.qm@web30213.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176699 career advisor answered question #14: > > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? > > Well ultimately DD is trying to get harry to sacrifice himself, so yeah, I'd say that is unhealthy. But Rita's actually implying pedophilia here or at least that is what I thought. Potioncat: That was the same feeling I had. It doesn't have to be stated, given the wide range of readers, but it's the most serious accusation you can make against someone who frequently works with youth. Paired with the comment that she and Harry are close friends, it made my blood boil. Potioncat would like to thank Anita for her thoughtful questions. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 03:04:04 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 03:04:04 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176700 > zeldaricdeau: > > You may not count this information as valuable for discussion since > it comes from her interviews, but what does this definition then > say about what was done to Marietta who retains permanent scarring > from the effects of the pimple-producing spell? > > > > Should we assume it's ok because she deserved it? Or perhaps > because it only left a "few" scars? Where do we draw the line? Mike: I did answer the question about Hermione's jinxed DA roster. I said it was dark magic, just not Dark Magic. I also clarified that not all spells that have long term effects are Dark as a spell that has no long term effects can still be called Dark. IOW, there is no single litmus test. Crucio is Dark, yet it's effects could be over almost instaneously. Obviously "deserving it" has nothing to do with what is Dark Magic. So, I suppose you'd like to know whether this makes Hermione a "Dark Witch"? I also suppose I'll let you answer that one for yourself, as my opinion is simply that, my opinion. FWIW, my answer is no. As to where we draw the line, I guess that's really two questions. Personally, my line is defined by "I know it when I see it". And it is not defined by who casts the spell. Canon's line? The $64K question on this list, aint it? But I'd venture to say that Harry casting Crucio, and canon depicting Crucio as Dark Magic proves to me that canon doesn't define it by who cast the spell either. Now, do ya wanna ask me if Harry is a "Dark Wizard"? LOL Mike From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 5 03:25:17 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 19:25:17 -0800 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176701 Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I know it forces a person to act against his/her will, but there are some circumstances in which that might be the best thing for the person. When Harry Imperio'ed the Death Eater (can't remember his name right now) when they were in Gringotts, it didn't hurt him. It actually protected him from further harm. Even when fake Moody demonstrated it in DADA, it wasn't "bad" enough that it couldn't be used on students to demonstrate its effects. Rather than calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 04:23:46 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:23:46 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176702 > Mike: > I did answer the question about Hermione's jinxed DA roster. zeldaricdeau: Sorry if you've answered it elsewhere. I've tried to keep up with all the posts but I only get to the list twice a week on average and well ... there's a lot to keep up with :). > Mike: > I said it was dark magic, just not Dark Magic. I also clarified > that not all spells that have long term effects are Dark as a spell > that has no long term effects can still be called Dark. IOW, there > is no single litmus test. Certainly, in the real world things would be much easier if there were a single litmus test for moral issues like this. And I don't mean to sound like I want any such test for the Potter universe, but I would like a little more consistency than we seem to get. > Crucio is Dark, yet it's effects could be over almost instaneously. > Obviously "deserving it" has nothing to do with what is Dark Magic. > So, I suppose you'd like to know whether this makes Hermione a > "Dark Witch"? zeldaricdeau: Well, I would and I wouldn't. I get the impression that JKR would say no and thinks we should be in total agreement. In fact I suspect she'd be really surprised that there's so much debate going on in places like this about the nature of Dark Magic. And I wouldn't argue with her or you about Hermione's status as a "Dark Witch." I *don't* think Hermione is a Dark Witch any more than I think Harry is a Dark Wizard. But those responses are all on that gut level that ties up all the plot holes and moral ambiguity and makes the books make sense. I'd like to know what's driving that gut level reaction. It's like JKR wants us to both be absolutely sure of what's good and what's bad (so we have these instinctual reactions to the actions of certain characters) and at the same time wants to tease us with moral ambiguity and ethics questions (when is it ok for a person to use an Unforgivable). And to be clear, I wasn't trying to imply that you were saying that Marietta deserved it. I'm just trying to find that key that Rowling wants us to see (and which clearly some of us see instinctually) which tells us why Hermione's curse was ok and, say, Imperio is not. > As to where we draw the line, I guess that's really two questions. > Personally, my line is defined by "I know it when I see it". That's where my question is I think: HOW do you know it when you see it? What cues is the book giving people like you and me that makes us "know it when we see it?" Is it just that we're importing our own moral codes or has the book set us up to know when and how to respond? Are we just being manipulated into seeing right and wrong or are we being given a coherent structure of principles by which we could, theoretically puzzle out what is Dark and what is Not Dark. > And it is not defined by who casts the spell. Canon's line? The > $64K question on this list, aint it? But I'd venture to say that > Harry casting Crucio, and canon depicting Crucio as Dark Magic > proves to me that canon doesn't define it by who cast the spell > either. I think I'm a little confused by this. It sounds like what you're saying is that Harry casts Crucio which the books present as Dark Magic and therefore, the books do not define what is Dark by who uses them. But I have trouble seeing how one leads to the other here. How does Harry casting a Dark Spell mean that what is Dark is not determined by who casts it? (I'm not trying to say that the books ARE saying that Dark Magic status is determined by the caster, mind). > Now, do ya wanna ask me if Harry is a "Dark Wizard"? LOL I just want to know how we know if he is or not (and no, *I* don't think he is). For many people (not everyone and I've certainly not read all the posts) "how we know" seems to be boiling down to either: 1.) because of a gut reaction that can't easily be traced to a cohesive structure of principles in the books. OR 2.) because the books are manipulating us into believing in an inherently hypocritical point of view (moral status defined by who is doing the deed and not the deed itself). -ZR From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 04:36:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 04:36:55 -0000 Subject: "Dodgy" Doge and his "stupid hat" Was: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176703 Potioncat wrote: And I can't remember who suggested that Kendra was Muggleborn. Carol responds: I thought that it was Rita but it turns out to be Auntie Muriel: "Dumbledore's mother was a terrifying woman, simply terrifying. Muggle-born, though I heard she pretended otherwise." Elphias Doge protests, "She never pretended anything of the sort! Kendra was a fine woman" (DH Am. ed. 155). So I'd say that her character was in dispute (Muriel siding with Rita Skeeter against poor Dodgy) but her bloodline wasn't. FWIW, that makes Dumbledore a Half-blood like most of the other powerful wizards in the book: Voldemort, Harry, and Snape. Potioncat wrote: > I tended to believe Doge just because of his name. I associated "doge" with a wise man. So I had to go look it up to see what it really was. It was an elected magistrate in Venice. So I guess how you might interpret the meaning of the name, might depend on what you think about elected officials. > > Doge thinks of DD much like Ron thinks of Harry---or even Sirius of James. So I think he tells the truth as he sees it. Aberforth of course, thinks Doge was blind to DD's darker side. I didn't believer a word of Skeeter's report when I read it in this chapter. It wasn't until later that questions came up my mind that she might have had some basis for some of it. Carol: Interesting that you had that reaction. I figured the truth was somewhere between the two versions. I thought of the Doge of Venice when I read Doge's name. This medieval portrait of a Doge might give a clue as to the "stupid hat" that Doge used to wear, mentioned by Mad-eye Moody in OoP: http://against-the-day.pynchonwiki.com/wiki/images/9/97/Doge.jpg I was surprised at the nicknames Rita uses for Doge ("Dodgy" and "Dogbreath") because "doge" (related to "duke" and derived from "duc," Latin for "leader") is pronounced with a long "o." "Dodgy" reminds me of Mundungus and his dodgy cauldrons. I think it means something like shady (as in "shady deal") or not quite right. The Brits on the list can provide a better definition. At any rate, Rita is poking fun at him in some way, and he's clearly not a leader but a follower, so that aspect of his name is misleading. As for Elphias, the best I can come up with after a fairly extensive Google search is that it's a partial transposition of Eliphas, as in Eliphas Levi, the pseudonym of a real-life dabbler in the Occult who ostensibly stated: "To deceive the people for the purpose of exploiting them, to enslave them and delay their progress, or prevent it even if possible, such is the crime of black magic." The source for this quotation is an anti-JKR website with a lot of typographical errors ("Elphias Levi," "Elphias Dodge," etc.), and as I know absolutely nothing about Eliphas Levi (except that it's "iph," not "phi," and Eliphas Levi was his attempt to transliterate his real first and middle names, Alphonse Louis, into Hebrew), I have no idea whether the creator of the web page knows what he's talking about. (He sounds like a fanatic to me.) http://kentroversypapers.blogspot.com/2005/07/intentions-of-harry-potter-author.html Anyway, if you're curious, there's more about Eliphas Levi, the polar opposite of poor old Elphias Doge, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliphas_Levi I wonder if the name is JKR's idea of a joke. (Please don't jump on me if you're familiar with Eliphas Levi and have informed opinions regarding him! I'm quite aware that I'm speaking from ignorance here.) On a semi-related note, since I mentioned Mad-eye Moody in passing, "Alastor" apparently comes from the title of a poem by Percy Shelley, "Alastor: Or the Spirit of Solitude." According to Shelley's friend Peacock, "Alastor" means "an evil genius" (in the sense of evil spirit) or avenging daimon (attendant spirit). Should have been a bad guy with that name. Carol, thinking that Elphias (or Eliphas) would have been a more suitable name for a certain merry-faced, golden-haired boy (whose name is a form of Gerard and means "brave" or "hardy") From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 08:15:55 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 08:15:55 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again (was: Dark Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176704 "zeldaricdeau" wrote: > Should we assume it's ok because she > [Marietta] deserved it? YES! > Where do we draw the line? My friend in the real world a line is never drawn between good and evil, rather a gray blob is drawn. As for Marietta, she is lucky, very lucky indeed to still have her skin for pimples to form on. In a real war a traitor like that would have one hell of a lot more to fear from her companions than pimples! I'm curious, when members of this and other Potter groups try to paint Harry or Hermione's (but for some reason never Ron or Snape's) actions in a sinister light are they just trying to be provocative or do they sincerely believe that JKR should embrace Saturday morning cartoon ethics? I'd really like to know. Eggplant From mz_annethrope at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 09:24:59 2007 From: mz_annethrope at yahoo.com (mz_annethrope) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:24:59 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176705 > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 2, > In Memoriam mz_annethrope: Thanks for the well considered questions. > Questions: > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > reaction the first time you read this? I thought Dudley must have left it because Petunia and Vernon wouldn't have. It seemed like a weird sort of rapprochement. I didn't think it was a prank. Tea? Shouldn't it have been a rat trap? > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? Oooooh. The Hogwart's curriculum is inadequate in so many ways. I'm suprised that all the students learn is "science" but in the most rudimentary way. Course work is rote memorization and following exact instructions. It seems aimed at producing drones in the workforce. No wonder the twins are poor students--they're bored to death. There's no literature, art, music, language, shop, or even sport aside from Quidditch. Wizarding society doesn't seem to value these things much. With the exception of DD and Barty Crouch. I'm surprised the students didn't learn basic healing charms. After all, I got first aid in school. And though they didn't teach us medicine in high school I did have Anatomy and Physiology. On the other hand, it seems the students must have picked up a bit of healing from Herbology and Potions. These are probably more important to healing than flashy charms. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing > charms? Is he right? He thinks she knows everything because she always has her head in a book. Hermione is prescient to bring Dittany with her while the Trio are on the lam, but she doesn't seem to know all that much about healing. Come to think of it, why does Harry even consider healing charms when neither he nor anyone else is not allowed to perform magic at Privet Drive until he's 17? (Now wondering why Tonks is allowed to perform charms at Privet Drive.) > > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > Has he made much progress? Yes and No. Harry tried to be the stereotypical male--the only emotions he allows himself to show are anger and rage. He improved in the last book at suppressing these, more so in this one. But I think the feeling that Harry is trying to control here is pain. He always tries to do that and not much has changed at this point. > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. He's not going to return so he's packing for the road. He takes what he thinks he'll need (books), what might come in handy depending on the circumstance, and special mementos that he doesn't want to lose (photos, letters, map). The intentional packing shows a higher level of maturity than we've seen in him before, when he's always thrown things together and left them in his trunk to rot. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > welcome!) He learned secrecy at his mother's knee. So did Aberforth. He seems deeply ashamed of his family circumstances (everybody knew his father was in Azkaban so he wasn't going to deny that)and as he grew up he did plenty of things to be ashamed of. Let's not forget he grew up in Victorian England, which wasn't the most open of cultures. My guess is he is motivated partly by shame and partly by desire to promote himself and receive universal admiration. The shameful acts keep compounding so it becomes harder and harder to reveal himself. If he reveals this then he will have to reveal that because all of his sins are inter-related. Better to keep them all under wraps and then everybody but the DEs will admire him. It's interesting to me that the two most important characters aside from Harry opt either for a deathbed confession (that must be analyzed clinically afterwards) or for a post-mortem. The death bed confession reveals both the best and the worst of the character, the post-mortem only the worst. But where is our subject? I read "more reserved" as meaning that DD was jocular before Ariana's death and quiet afterwards and not that he suddenly clammed up. > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? Rita probably got everything out of her, and being a historian Bathilda knew a lot. But Rita ignored the correspondances that any decent biographer would have analyzed and only published the sensational tidbits. Sensation sells and scandal is all Rita cares about. > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? He knew nothing. > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Hmmm. Well, the most important part--the capture of the Elder wand-- went unreported. You could say the duel grew in legend because an important part was omitted in the legend and the rest substituted for the whole. > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > always planned for Harry to have this realization? I think what it says is that Harry failed to ask DD personal questions and now he regrets it. It's a set up for the revelations we'll receive. I think there are three issues concerning Harry's lack of curiosity. One is that he learned at his aunt and uncle's knee not to ask questions. Two is that JKR (to my annoyance) uses Harry's lack of curiosity to keep the reader in the dark. I can't believe he doesn't know about the Trace. But Harry does ask questions occasionally. He even asks questions of Snape during Occlumency lessons. Which leads to three: Harry doesn't ask personal questions. He realizes he doesn't understand girls in OotP, but he doesn't seem interested in people until he gets hold of the Prince's Potions book. Then he gets very interested because the Prince is a mystery and an object of his desire. Getting to know the Prince correlates nicely with DD's teaching him the most important matter for a general--know your enemy. By knowing his enemy he can defeat Voldemort in DH. But along the way he has to get to know the other enemy who proves not to be as much an enemy as he thought and the friend who proves not to be much of a friend. This knowledge--summed up in "know thyself"-- enables him to choose to fight The Enemy. > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? Zilch. > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? Dunno. I wasn't expecting the way it played out. Good job, JKR. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > the denouement. Any speculation? This is the sort of little unessential detail that lends an air of realism to this book, which is a Fantasy. It reminds me of Huckleberry Finn and Jim going down the river and hearing a startling noise which proves to be nothing. Or of Tolkien's backstory in LotR. > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? Well I thought she was accusing DD of pederasty. The unhealthy relationship rings true, but not for the reasons Rita implied. > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > certain truths? As for Doge I'm reminded of Gandalf assessing Pippin's acount looking into Palantir and saying something to the effect of "A fool you've been, Peregrin Took, but an honest one." > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > first time you read the book? When are we going to see DD and under what guise? mz_annethrope (waitng for a more professional biographer of DD--say Luna Lovegood) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 09:55:32 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 09:55:32 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176706 Laura: > Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I know it forces a > person to act against his/her will, but there are some circumstances > in which that might be the best thing for the person. When Harry > Imperio'ed the Death Eater (can't remember his name right now) when > they were in Gringotts, it didn't hurt him. It actually protected > him from > further harm. Even when fake Moody demonstrated it in DADA, it > wasn't "bad" enough that it couldn't be used on students to demonstrate > its effects. Rather than calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a > Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. Ceridwen: I agree with you about the Imperius curse. I can also make a case for the AK, as in mercy killings and, when the society has it, the death penalty. Outside of law enforcement and mental health, the use of Imperius would probably be for the purpose of forcing someone to do something against his or her will. Imagine an innocent being forced to attempt robbing Gringotts, or a love interest being forced to marry someone they don't want to marry. Those would be more likely scenarios for the average citizen or subject to use this curse. If it was "Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able", though, instead of Unforgivable, it would allow its use against people who break into someone's home, or to stop a suicider from killing himself or herself, or in other unusual circumstances that might but may not always, pop up. Ceridwen, who was not under Imperius when she wrote this post. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 11:59:20 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:59:20 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176707 Laura Lynn Walsh: > > Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I know it forces a > person to act against his/her will, but there are some circumstances > in which that might be the best thing for the person. When Harry > Imperio'ed the Death Eater (can't remember his name right now) when > they were in Gringotts, it didn't hurt him. It actually protected > him from > further harm. Even when fake Moody demonstrated it in DADA, it > wasn't "bad" enough that it couldn't be used on students to demonstrate > its effects. Rather than calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a > Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. Lisa: I think the taking of one's freedom of choice is what is what makes it unforgiveable, no matter what the circumstances. Who is anyone else to decide what is best for me? And where do you draw the line? Lisa From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 11:57:28 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 11:57:28 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176708 > Mike: > I did answer the question about Hermione's jinxed DA roster. I said > it was dark magic, just not Dark Magic. I also clarified that not all > spells that have long term effects are Dark as a spell that has no > long term effects can still be called Dark. IOW, there is no single > litmus test. Crucio is Dark, yet it's effects could be over almost > instaneously. lizzyben: OK... so there's a distinction between "dark magic" & "Dark Magic" that's never been outlined in the books at all? What is the distinction? Is it simply that it's (lower-case) dark magic when our side does it and (upper-case) Dark Magic when people we don't like do it? Mike: > Obviously "deserving it" has nothing to do with what is Dark Magic. > So, I suppose you'd like to know whether this makes Hermione a "Dark > Witch"? I also suppose I'll let you answer that one for yourself, as > my opinion is simply that, my opinion. FWIW, my answer is no. > As to where we draw the line, I guess that's really two questions. > Personally, my line is defined by "I know it when I see it". And it > is not defined by who casts the spell. lizzyben: But if it's such an instinctive gut reaction as "I know it when I see it," w/no further definition, how can you be sure that your opinion isn't being influenced by who is casting the spell (i.e. a beloved character or hated character), or what we are told & not shown (Slytherins use dark magic, Gryffindors don't). Mike: Canon's line? The $64K > question on this list, aint it? But I'd venture to say that Harry > casting Crucio, and canon depicting Crucio as Dark Magic proves to me > that canon doesn't define it by who cast the spell either. > > Now, do ya wanna ask me if Harry is a "Dark Wizard"? LOL > > Mike lizzyben: Well, he's certainly got an aptitude for Dark Curses, doesn't he? This boy took weeks of practice to learn an Accio spell, but can inflict Sectumsempra, Crucio & Imperio w/no practice at all. He's a natural. What I guess I'm saying is that the connotations & bias are so deep that it's really impossible to look at it objectively - we are totally steeped in the (biased) Gryffindor point of view, even though, upon closer examination, that POV really doesn't make any sense at all. I think it's very possible to create a coherent alternate POV in which *Gryffindor* House is really the House of Dark Magic, & our protagonists are potentially dangerous Dark Wizards. House A & House B - Students in House B have a reputation for inflicting Dark Curses on people who anger them; and most especially on students from House A. They are fanatically devoted to their Leader, & have been known to use violence against anyone who criticizes him. From their first year, 3 students from House B began to use dark curses & jinxes against anyone who got in their way. One witch came to Hogwarts knowing more curses than most seventh-years, and one of these students spoke Parselmouth, a classic sign of Dark Wizardry. This student later became the ring-leader of a group of budding dark wizards. This group regularly punched, jinxed, and cursed any student from House A who annoyed them - in fourth year, they used so much dark magic against some House A students that those students were knocked unconscious. The ring-leader formed a gang called the "DA", who met regularly to learn various Dark Arts & defenses; this gang is known to lift tactics from the Death Eaters. The witch created a hex that permanently injured anyone who tried to report their illegal activities; and the gang regularly cursed a member who questioned their activities. One promising Dark Witch from this gang developed her own signature hex, which she inflicted on any student who attempted to cross her. When the Headmaster & some House A students apprehended this gang, the gang used dark magic to inflict significant damage & escape. By sixth year, this "trio" of terror had so much power, nobody could stop them. The witch used jinxes to hurt a rival from her own House, and the ring-leader almost killed a student with a Dark Curse, w/little sign of remorse. He later attempted to use Unforgivable Curses against a professor. By seventh year, the ring-leader was using Unforgiveable Curses w/ease - Imperioing innocent goblins, & Crucioing a professor. Meanwhile, the Head of House B also used illegal Dark Curses herself=, and attempted to kill the Headmaster of the school. The students from House B regularly used Dark Magic against innocent students from House A, w/the encouragement & tacit approval of their Leader. Which is the real house of "Dark Magic" here? House A or House B? lizzyben From jnferr at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 12:48:22 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:48:22 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8ee758b40709050548t42463e81g11858e445b3442bc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176709 On 9/4/07, John Paul Smith wrote: > > Hey Group, > > I'm new and noticed that you talk about the role of Snape a bit > and I wanted to re-examine in the strata of modern literature as > a whole as I think he is the most important literary figure in > the books and we will more than likely see him emulated down the > road. > > My overall thought after reading Deathly Hallows is as follows. > With all of the HP series, Rowling uses timeless archetypes to > fill out her stories. If you take the obviousness of Star Wars > you can see this quite clearly. Take the SAT Route: Harry Potter > Series is to Star wars as: > > Harry = Luke Skywalker (the young hero) > Dumbledore = Ben Kenobi (learned master) > Hagrid = Chewbacca (loyal retainer) > > And so on and so forth, etc, etc. However, and what I have been > racking my brain about is "Where does Snape fit in this equation?" > Not Star Wars mind you but as an archetypal character? I have been > racking my brain about him and I can't seem to locate one. The > closest I come is close to an anti-hero but it doesn't quite fit, > does it? A good example of modern anti-hero is Travis Bickle in > Taxi Driver. But Snape always does the right thing throughout > the course of the books. Maybe not his past history, but through > the series he does, yes? So he is good, but he can't allow people > to know. Why? Therein is the issue I think. montims: Good question... Sydney Carton of The Tale of Two Cities? Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights? They're off the top of my head - I shall be interested to read others' thoughts. I do think, however, we must look to British literature for this kind of character, though I'm not sure why I think this - I must hurry to go to work now, but will ponder this... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 5 13:21:34 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 13:21:34 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176710 > Magpie: > Yes, because Dementors are monsters, basically, while Werewolves > are supposed to be like people instead of monsters. (Dementors > are "Dark Magic"--worse than just animals going after their natural > prey somehow, so that association with them says something hinky > about you--magic *isn't* always neutral.) It's not that I don't > *see* the difference. Jen: Oh! I've always read them as natural predators. Lupin does a little anthropomorphizing of them when he says they 'glory in decay and despair,' but they're not really presented as having or expressing feelings. There's some limited training that can take place such as not Kissing someone unless commanded, but there can be breakdown in the training like when the Dementor pounces on Crouch Jr. before Fudge can interview him or the group of Dementors goes after the Trio along with Sirius. Lupin gave a description of them acting as predators here: "They're getting hungry...Dumbledore won't let them into the school, so their supply of human prey has dried up...I don't think they could resist the large crowd around the Quidditch field. All that excitement...emotions running hight...it was their idea of a feast." (POA, chap, 10, p. 188, Am. ed.) It makes sense to me a wizard would think of a Dementor as evil because it preys on human emotions and souls. Magpie: > But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this kind of > punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that the > ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that > they did something dangerous. > My point is just that yes, I see the same differences you do, but > it still seems like one of those places where there's this > artificial superiority marking those idiots at the Ministry as > needing a lesson rather than a really thought-through moral idea. I > get it because I get it, not because I really feel like these guys > are good authorities on how to read signs that you're going to the > Dark Side. They are supposed to be that, I just don't think they > earn it. It's one of the places I'm aware of the deck being stacked. Jen: The punishment is only part of it since a majority of the WW seems to be tacitly agreeing with the use of them in Azkaban. They've been around since at least Lily's and Severus' youth. I see Dumbledore and indirectly, Lupin, representing a minority opinion. The other part of the corruption in my view is the MOM working with the Dementors instead of offering rights and freedoms to other groups of creatures. The whole fight between Fudge and Dumbledore, and the later work of the Order, is about forming a coalition to defeat Voldemort. I see them as representatives for two philosophically opposed groups in the WW: Fudge chooses the Dementors instead of sending an envoy to the giants (werewolves, goblins, centaurs...the giants are stand-ins for all the groups the Order contacts in OOTP.) Fudge is basically saying he'll cast his lot with the Dementors because it might be the end of his job (the world as he knows it) to form alliances with creatures who can become a legitimate part of the WW. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 5 14:42:32 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:42:32 -0000 Subject: Harry: Quest or Life Path? (Re: Harry as Frodo or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176712 L. Aryn: > The main question really came up was whether or not it really was a > quest or just an actual LIFE Path or not. Since it was Harry's Life. > And then was it really Frodo's Quest or his actual Life Path? Jen: That's a hard question for Harry because his Life Path *is* a quest of sorts, though not in the traditional sense of the protagonist setting out to intentionally locate something. Instead, Harry's putting together the lost parts of his life by decoding the purpose of the people from his past who parade into and out of his life, correctly identifying their connection and motives in order to learn the revelations needed to uncover his past. In order to complete the puzzle, he has to make a quest in fantasy terms because he can't truly live until Voldemort dies. I particularly liked the idea that Harry's quest to find the Horcruxes is what brings him closer and closer to completing his primary task. As Voldemort's anchors to life are destroyed, Harry's rapidly fitting the final pieces into the puzzle. In the end, "all is well" because he's come full-circle to where he started, a whole person at last. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 5 14:42:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 14:42:28 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176713 > > Magpie: > > Well, yeah. The spiritual is nebulous. It's worse because it > > hurts "the soul" which is an important...nebulous thing. The > trouble > > is that I see the potential for the same sign of trouble in other > > things and don't just draw the line at harming the soul. The > > very "underlying corruption" JKR says the Dementors point to in the > > Ministry has been seen (and described in similar terms) by various > > readers as existing in other places, so it's understandable that to > > readers like that (like me) this distinction falls flat. Especially > > since the stuff we saw earlier and worried about seemed more > > interesting because it was moral danger to the characters we cared > > about and this is just another example of other people falling > short > > of their example again. > > > Alla: > > You know me, I do not mean it to sound dismissive, but I am afraid it > still may come out that way. Truly and honestly, it is just I simply > do not know how to phrase it better. > > What is whether you draw the line at harming the soul has to do with > the original point as I understood it to be? Magpie: I was responding to JKR telling us that the use of Dementors was supposed to to signify the concept of an "underlying moral corruption" in the Ministry because they used this terrible punishment, not questioning what was so bad about Dementors. Because I see plenty of other things in the books that seem to also signify moral corruption, so saying that only Dementors are supposed to show that seems arbitrary to me, no matter how obvious the books make it that the Dementors are far worse than anything anybody else does because, you know, SOUL. So to me it seems like every opportunity to actually show the concept of a problematic corruption going on is said to be a good thing, so it's funny to then be told that actually the author did intend to deal with that very idea--aren't those Dementors awful? Do I need to say a few more times that I get that Dementors are so bad because whenever something's happening to the soul in canon that signals that it's really bad? Because I'd like to bow out of saying that again too. What the Ministry does barely matters to me--they're consistently wrong, inferior to Dumbledore and our kids, at best useless and at worse corrupt and helping Voldemort. The idea of this kind of corruption obviously does interest me--that's why I kept expecting some turnaround in the last book about that on the good side. I don't feel like I got it with the Dementors. What I did say, which perhaps causes the confusion, is that there are few punishments I would just assume the good guys would be horrified by if they did it themselves. They've impressed me too many times in this regard for me to really just assume they would never do such and such, since if somebody told me to think about the cruelest moments in the series I wouldn't immediately think of Dementors or only the bad guys. How much worse it is to have your soul eaten is a non-issue for me since it's completely imaginary. Eggplant: I'm curious, when members of this and other Potter groups try to paint Harry or Hermione's (but for some reason never Ron or Snape's) actions in a sinister light are they just trying to be provocative or do they sincerely believe that JKR should embrace Saturday morning cartoon ethics? I'd really like to know. Magpie: Well speaking as somebody who sees some of Harry and Hermione's actions in a sinister light, I paint plenty of Snape's actions in a sinister light as well. I paint plenty of Ron's in an unflattering light--since he's not as cool as Harry and Hermione he actually never gets to do anything much sinister. He's just less than admirable. If he was marking people's faces I assure you I'd think he was a psycho too, but as it happens megalomania is more Hermione's cute little quirk than Ron's. But as for Saturday Morning cartoon ethics, I would have thought you'd like that, since when you say the line between good and evil is a blob of grey it seems like you really just mean that good can do a lot of bad stuff with no consequences in the defeat of evil, which is obvious to everyone. I would think a lot of the punishments you're supporting here would be perfectly at home in a Saturday morning cartoon. Nobody has a problem when Bugs Bunny gives somebody a dynamite cigar for annoying him. It seems like any number of times you've said that the line between good and evil is very clearly drawn, so much so that you would have shot whatever person you consider evil in the face and believe any jury of actual people in the real world would laugh at the idea that you could be punished for it, so clear is the line. Jen: Oh! I've always read them as natural predators. Lupin does a little anthropomorphizing of them when he says they 'glory in decay and despair,' but they're not really presented as having or expressing feelings. Magpie: I don't think Lupin is anthropomorphizing. I think he's a DADA professor telling us the truth about Dementors and that this is why they are a sign of underlying corruption in the Ministry and are considered Dark Creatures. I don't think we're shown Dementors in enough detail to say that they don't really have feelings and that Lupin is exaggerating, and I think they're going to Voldemort indicates that as well. Reading into it that Lupin is exaggerating and they're really neutral, etc., just seems to me less straightforward when they author seems to me to be putting this stuff in to show something else. I mean, that's a pretty intense image there of the glorying in stuff--did the author really expect it to be dismissed? There seems to me to be an obvious difference between Dementors and natural predators who are scary but friends of Hagrid. Hagrid's not bothered by giant man-eating spiders or dragons or Thestrals. Those he can train and get along with, even if he can't train them to really be safe around others. Hagrid would never have a pet Dementor, imo. They are truly Dark Creatures. Magpie: > But it's still just arbitrary, imo, that the use of this kind of > punishment is supposed to be so ghoulish as to suggest that the > ministry has an *underlying corruption* rather than just that > they did something dangerous. > My point is just that yes, I see the same differences you do, but > it still seems like one of those places where there's this > artificial superiority marking those idiots at the Ministry as > needing a lesson rather than a really thought-through moral idea. I > get it because I get it, not because I really feel like these guys > are good authorities on how to read signs that you're going to the > Dark Side. They are supposed to be that, I just don't think they > earn it. It's one of the places I'm aware of the deck being stacked. Jen: The punishment is only part of it since a majority of the WW seems to be tacitly agreeing with the use of them in Azkaban. They've been around since at least Lily's and Severus' youth. I see Dumbledore and indirectly, Lupin, representing a minority opinion. The other part of the corruption in my view is the MOM working with the Dementors instead of offering rights and freedoms to other groups of creatures. The whole fight between Fudge and Dumbledore, and the later work of the Order, is about forming a coalition to defeat Voldemort. I see them as representatives for two philosophically opposed groups in the WW: Fudge chooses the Dementors instead of sending an envoy to the giants (werewolves, goblins, centaurs...the giants are stand-ins for all the groups the Order contacts in OOTP.) Fudge is basically saying he'll cast his lot with the Dementors because it might be the end of his job (the world as he knows it) to form alliances with creatures who can become a legitimate part of the WW. Magpie: Well, yeah. Dumbledore's fabulous all around when it comes to what he says--too good for this flawed world, really. Of course Dumbledore can see that Dementors are horrible creatures while all these other creatures should be treated equally (even though as far as I can see the view of the right Wizards seems to be superior throughout canon). It will still always just be ridiculous to me that in this series the place where I'm supposed to be seeing an underlying moral corruption is the Ministry (who are always wrong anyway) using Dementors and not any moment where I actually see a character we care about do something and think wtf? That'll come back on you! (Even the Prank, the one thing I always thought was all about this sort of thing, turned out to validate Sirius' view of the whole thing.) JKR says that Kingsley would never allow Dementors to be used as guards because that was wrong, didn't she? I don't think she qualified it by saying that it was really more that Fudge didn't make deals with centaurs and giants etc. I think again her point was far more straightforward: using these horrible creatures as guards indicated an underlying corruption in the Ministry, which is why Kingsley would definitely not do it. (Whether he is making treaties with giants we're not told.) -m From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 5 14:46:11 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 06:46:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176714 On 2007, Sep 05, , at 03:59, Lisa wrote: > Lisa: > > I think the taking of one's freedom of choice is what is what makes > it unforgiveable, no matter what the circumstances. Who is anyone > else to decide what is best for me? And where do you draw the line? > > Lisa A bus is coming toward you. You don't see it, as you are busy looking at something else. I am too far away to push you out of its way. I can Imperio you to move. Is that Unforgiveable? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 16:32:15 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:32:15 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again (was: Dark Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176715 > "zeldaricdeau" wrote: > > > Should we assume it's ok because she > > [Marietta] deserved it? > Eggplant: > YES! zeldaricdeau again: How do we objectively determine who deserves what? Voldemort thought Charity Burbage deserved it. Was he right? If not, how do we know? For the record *I* most certainly don't think Burbage deserved it! > > zeldaricdeau: > > Where do we draw the line? > Eggplant: > My friend in the real world a line is never drawn between good and > evil, rather a gray blob is drawn. As for Marietta, she is lucky, > very lucky indeed to still have her skin for pimples to form on. In > a real war a traitor like that would have one hell of a lot more to > fear from her companions than pimples! zeldaricdeau again: I don't think I was talking about the real world but the Harry Potter universe. We could argue about whether or not a fictional universe should have a grey area or not between it's definitions of "good" and "evil" (incidentally, I think it should) but that wasn't really the point of bringing up Marietta. Rather, it was to test the definition of "Dark Magic" being defined by causing lasting physical harm. Incidentally, I don't think JKR has provided us with a good definition. If she had I don't think the subject would be so hotly debated right now. Also, I don't believe that, at the time, Marietta was involved in an actual war, and I certainly don't think she saw herself as being involved in one. > I'm curious, when members of this and other Potter groups try to > paint Harry or Hermione's (but for some reason never Ron or > Snape's) actions in a sinister light are they just trying to be > provocative or do they sincerely believe that JKR should embrace > Saturday morning cartoon ethics? I'd really like to know. zeldaricdeau again: I was unaware that I was "trying to paint Hermione in a sinister light." As I said in my follow up post, I don't perceive Hermione as sinister in the least. The issue with Marietta was, again, to test the lasting physical harm definition. Since Marietta did technically receive lasting physical harm, but most people--me included--wouldn't count Hermione a Dark Witch then what does that say about the definition (or guideline as I think it was really intended in this case) or how JKR characterizes Dark Magic in the series? Incidentally, I hope that as a Death Eater Snape did more than gave someone pimples because if he didn't then I'm going to feel very silly for actually finding the whole Death Eater thing extremely disturbing. As for wanting to turn JKR's moral universe into that of a Saturday morning cartoon, I think that would take far more work than any single human being could muster, and I honestly wouldn't even see the point. -ZR From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 16:41:15 2007 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:41:15 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore kill? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176716 In King's Cross, when Harry and DD are talking about the difference between Hallows and Horcruxes, Harry tries to reassure DD that he is better than Voldemort because he wanted "Hallows, not Horcruxes", and he never killed anyone if he didn't have to in his quest for immortality, the greater good, etc. I have been wracking my brain and going through the books, but I have not found any evidence that DD ever killed anyone (Arianna excepted). I had always assumed he had killed Grindelwald, but once it was revealed that Grindelwald was still alive, I have no other ideas. Is this just a reference to the fact that DD must have killed a Death Eater or two or some other dark Wizard in the course of his life or am I missing something. Mel From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Sep 5 16:47:11 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:47:11 -0000 Subject: Whom did Dumbledore kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176717 > In King's Cross, when Harry and DD are talking about the difference > between Hallows and Horcruxes, Harry tries to reassure DD that he is > better than Voldemort because he wanted "Hallows, not Horcruxes", and > he never killed anyone if he didn't have to in his quest for > immortality, the greater good, etc. I have been wracking my brain and > going through the books, but I have not found any evidence that DD > ever killed anyone (Arianna excepted). I had always assumed he had > killed Grindelwald, but once it was revealed that Grindelwald was > still alive, I have no other ideas. Is this just a reference to the > fact that DD must have killed a Death Eater or two or some other dark > Wizard in the course of his life or am I missing something. > > Mel I think what Harry meant by this is not that DD never killed - something that he was in no position to know - but that he didn't kill anybody seeking personal immortality as Voldemort did. Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Sep 5 16:50:04 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:50:04 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: <46DDEFE9.3020101@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176718 > prep0strus wrote: > > so far. A repentant murderer is all well and good, but it's not > > exactly the same as a *NEVER* murderer. > > Bart: > Actually, in most branches of Christianity, it is. Rowena: There are even those who argue a truly repentent sinner is morally superior to one who has neither sinned nor been tempted. From mhersheybar at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 16:51:28 2007 From: mhersheybar at hotmail.com (melhersheybar) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 16:51:28 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: <001d01c7ed70$4fb5e7f0$04c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176719 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > Renee: > Then this is probably not going to help: If DD died at the end of > Harry's sixth year, 1996 ought to be 1997. > > > Another problem with math and DD's age that is much bigger, IMO, is the fact that he dueled with Grindelwald in 1945 when, according to jkrowling.com, he was 64 years old (he is wizard of the month this month and his year of birth is listed as 1881). Yet, when talking to Harry about Grindelwald, he mentions watching GW become more and more powerful for something like five years, before he finally realized he would have to fight him. He and Grindelwald were friends for several months when they were in their early 20s - after the fight where Arianna died, Grindelwald began showing his true colors. I always read this to mean that he and DD dueled within 5-10 years of their parting, but obviously not, if he really was 64 at the time of the battle. I just have to accept the errors and move on or I will go nuts. > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Mel > From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Wed Sep 5 17:01:50 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:01:50 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176720 > lizzyben: > > Dumbledore & Grindelwald were buddies once, that doesn't make > Grindelwald a good guy. Rowena: DD and GW were friends very briefly in their youth. Gryffindor and Slytherin has a long standing relationship including building the School together before the final falling out. > lizzyben: > > "Said Slytherin, we'll take those whose blood is purest." He did > insist on pure-bloods, accepting half-bloods as a presumable second- > best when there weren't enough pure-bloods to fill the house. Rowena: I took that to mean he insisted on Wizarding ancestry. > lizzyben: > > Or maybe he was just an old softie, like Hagrid, and thought the > Basilik monster was harmless & just needed a home. :) Rowena: A possibility that occurred to me. Slytherin was a parselmouth a rare specimen like a basilisk would definitely have an appeal for him. Lizzyben: > From HP Lexicon: > Killing all muggle-born students was Slytherin's "noble purpose". > Oh, and Slytherin also looked "ancient and monkey-like." Just wanted > to throw that in there. Rowena: Personally I took that as nothing more than a reprise of the legend, whose truth nobody now alive can really know. Lizzyben: > Contrast this w/the description of Godric Gryffindor: "Godric > Gryffindor was the most accomplished dueller of his time, an > enlightened fighter against Muggle-discrimination." And "he has mane- like red hair, green eyes, and a powerful build." *swoon* Handsome AND enlightened! Rowena: Probably younger than Salazar too. The very fact the latter is praised for his anti-discrimination stand suggest to me that Slytherin's was the more common attitude. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 17:10:44 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:10:44 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Whom did Dumbledore kill? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <236851.99358.qm@web52701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176721 melhersheybar wrote: In King's Cross, when Harry and DD are talking about the difference between Hallows and Horcruxes, Harry tries to reassure DD that he is better than Voldemort because he wanted "Hallows, not Horcruxes", and he never killed anyone if he didn't have to in his quest for immortality, the greater good, etc. I have been wracking my brain and going through the books, but I have not found any evidence that DD ever killed anyone (Arianna excepted). I had always assumed he had killed Grindelwald, but once it was revealed that Grindelwald was still alive, I have no other ideas. Is this just a reference to the fact that DD must have killed a Death Eater or two or some other dark Wizard in the course of his life or am I missing something. Mel ***Katie: I assume that DD had to have killed his share of anonymous DE's in the course of his life. He's been a target and an enemy of Voldemort's since the beginning, and he also organized the OotP to fight him. As in the second war, which we get to see, the first war must have been bloody on both sides. I assume everyone involved did some killing, in duels and such. That was my assumption about DD's killing people - just anonymous DE's - no one we had heard of. Katie . --------------------------------- Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 17:18:24 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:18:24 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176722 > Magpie: >> > Do I need to say a few more times that I get that Dementors are so > bad because whenever something's happening to the soul in canon that > signals that it's really bad? Alla: No :) Magpie: > What I did say, which perhaps causes the confusion, is that there > are few punishments I would just assume the good guys would be > horrified by if they did it themselves. They've impressed me too > many times in this regard for me to really just assume they would > never do such and such, since if somebody told me to think about the > cruelest moments in the series I wouldn't immediately think of > Dementors or only the bad guys. How much worse it is to have your > soul eaten is a non-issue for me since it's completely imaginary. Alla: But this is the heart of disagreement isn't it?. You see the arbitrarity with the Dementors, because for you those other punishments are worse and when you think of cruelest moments in the series, you would not think only of the Dementors . Isn't the point what JKR considers the cruelest moments in the series and how **clear** she shows it? Harm to Marietta was only physical, wasn't it? You consider it awful, I ( and JKR as well) in the book universe consider it not awful at all. Especially considering the fact that I see books consistently more concerned with spiritual harm over physical. So what is arbitrary here? And, em, what do you mean sucking your soul is a non - issue? Of course dementors doing that is fictional, but plenty of people believe in the existance of the souls and would consider harm to the soul as the most horrible thing that can happen to them, **more** than any harm to their flesh. I do not know if I would go that far, and I doubt that any religion would consider me a practicing person, but I definitely believe in the existance of the soul as essense of person's humanity and that person's soul can be hurt. So, no it is not a non-issue for me, it is a nice metaphor for something I believe in. JMO, Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 17:30:16 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:30:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176723 > > prep0strus wrote: > > > so far. A repentant murderer is all well and good, but it's not > > > exactly the same as a *NEVER* murderer. > > Bart: > > Actually, in most branches of Christianity, it is. > Rowena: > There are even those who argue a truly repentent sinner is morally > superior to one who has neither sinned nor been tempted. > Prep0strus: It gets us into areas of personal morality, as well as religious, with absolution and the like. No one can really say if someone else has been tempted or not, but by that logic, to reach a true moral high ground you should go out and do something horrible to someone... and then feel really really bad about it. I don't believe someone who kills can ever be the same as someone who has not killed. The baron's afterlife is made more miserable by the chains he puts on himself, and repentance is very good. But I don't think that was what JKR was trying to show us, really. We didn't get a Baron-arc in the story. What we got was another symbol of Slytherin that did something terrible and then tries to make up for it through a fairly miserable existence. I think it would be almost more meaningful to have someone who repents and gets to live a full life, but that doesn't happen (perhaps closest with Dumbledore, whose sin is arguably smaller, and his life still not full). In any case, it's not the Fat Friar who stabbed somebody with a carving knife. It is again Slytherin. The founder placed a monster to kill people. The ghost is a former murderer. The head of house is a nasty, angry man working through his own repentance. Its most famous graduate is a monster himself, as well as an attempted genocide. Its graduates that we have met are participants in this movement. Its current students are bullies and DE neophytes. Perhaps there is a symbolic idea of repentance for Slytherin house, but then it seems that no one else needs repentance, just Slytherins. The Baron might be repentant, and therefore in some theological views in moral equivalence with non-murderers, but from a story point of view, JKR made the Slytherin ghost a murderer, finding another opportunity to show us that Slytherins, from old to new, are worse than everyone else. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 17:35:29 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:35:29 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176724 --- Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I > know it forces a person to act against his/her will, > but there are some circumstances in which that might > be the best thing for the person. ... Rather than > calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a > Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. > > Laura bboyminn: Here is the problem, many citizens set themselves outside the law. Now, I don't mean that they are outlaws, quite the contrary, the see themselves as near perfect law-abiding citizens who also feel that the law doesn't apply to them. An example, many many MANY years ago the local town passed an anti-loitering ordinance. No one could pause on the main street of town for more than one minute (or whatever) without being in violation. I was explaining to the Mother of a friend of mine that if she paused too long to browse a shop window or paused to talk to a friend on the street, she could be in violation of the law. "Oh no, they would never do that to me. That law is for other people." How does that little story apply to the question at hand? It is easy to see the Imperius as OK, when you apply it to hypothetic scenarios or when it is a third party controlling a fouth party. But ask yourself this, do you want anyone controlling you under any circumstances? That is any likely and reasonable circumstance that could occur rather than very unlikely hypothetical circumstances? It is easy to say, well if I'm standing on the train tracks and a train is coming, I wouldn't mind someone making me move to safety, but what are the odds that you will be standing on the train tracks and not realize it? And once you do realize it and an also realize a train is coming, what are the odds you will continue to stand their? Not that likely. It is alway easy to rationalize these things when we apply them to the abstract 'other' while at the same time, like my friends mother, assume that it can ONLY happen to the 'other'. The problem is, to everyone else WE ARE THE 'OTHER'. As to the use of the Unforgivables by the good guys in the story. Sometime circumstance really are so extreme that equally extreme measures are needed. What would you have Harry do when they entered Gringotts? Would you have him fail in a task vital to the preservation of liberty in the Wizard and Muggle world? Would you have him say, well better to fail and set the world under the boot heal of tyranny, than to do something wrong? There seem to be a lot of people who are moral absolutists or perhaps moral socialists, that see every action as morally neutral. Why is it OK for the good guys but not for the bad guys? Well, if you can't see that the bad guys are indeed the bad guys then I think you need to have your (general) compass adjusted. I don't really think you can take the evil action of an evil person out of their moral context just so it can be presented as 'morally neutral'. Context is everything. In the right context, nearly anything can be justified. In the context of Harry and other 'white hats' using Unforgivables, I think they can be forgiven. They are still wrong, but they are understandable and forgivable. By extension, there is no such thing as a morally neutral action. It is by moral context that we determine who is good and who is evil, who are the terrorists and who are the freedom fighters. Or at least that's how I see it. Steve/bboyminn From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 5 17:47:09 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:47:09 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176725 According to chapter seventeen of The Deathly Hallows (Bathilda's Secret), we know that James & Lilly Potter died on the 31st October 1981. Eleven years later Harry started attending Hogwarts. A quick calculation would therefore indicate that the Deathly Hallows is set in the year 1999. J.K. Rowling ends the Deathly Hallows 19 years later with Harry's children James and Albus going off to Hogwarts, this being Albus' first term. 1999 plus 19 would make that year 2018, this would indicate that James was born last year; and Albus this year. Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime during these nineteen years? I for one would like to know what happened to him after defeating the Dark Lord. salo.krano From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 5 17:56:56 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:56:56 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176726 > Alla: > > But this is the heart of disagreement isn't it?. You see the > arbitrarity with the Dementors, because for you those other > punishments are worse and when you think of cruelest moments in the > series, you would not think only of the Dementors . > > Isn't the point what JKR considers the cruelest moments in the series > and how **clear** she shows it? Magpie: She shows me that I'm supposed to think it's bad by having everybody say it's bad and talk about damage to souls as a bad thing. But obviously she didn't make me feel it because she made people do too many things that made me think "uh-oh, underlying corruption!" besides them. To me the difference between how awful it would be to have your soul sucked by a monster or have somebody hex pimples across your face is like...well, both of them sound like something I'd expect to be held up as a cruel thing to do. I think it's absurd I should be constantly having to worry about that kind of distinction so that the latter can be something good. The books might be "concerned" with spiritual harm but to me showing it means showing the heroes at risk themselves, not showing them skipping off without feeling anything as long as they haven't done it using one of the specifically marked Spiritually Harming At All Times things that other people do. In the real world, even in religions, there's generally something more concrete going on if people fear for the state of their soul. I would think even stories where people sell their soul to the Devil are supposed to reflect real world temptations that everyone succumbs to. The Dementors for me therefore wind up just scary Gothic touches that don't stand out against other things. As I said, they're just yet another way that other people are worse than our heroes and yet another scary thing that Harry might face. Do I think the author clearly shows that they're supposed to be very awful, making all these other things just fine by comparison (if they were even bad to begin with?)--sure. But making clear what I'm supposed to get out of something doesn't mean she's convinced me she's said anything much of note about this subject. I wouldn't use this story as any sort of guide on how to avoid spiritual corruption or harm to my "soul" any more than I'd use it as a guide for choosing what's right over what's easy. -m From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 18:00:57 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:00:57 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > > > Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I > > know it forces a person to act against his/her will, > > but there are some circumstances in which that might > > be the best thing for the person. ... Rather than > > calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a > > Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. > > > > Laura > > bboyminn: > > There seem to be a lot of people who are moral > absolutists or perhaps moral socialists, that see > every action as morally neutral. Why is it OK for the > good guys but not for the bad guys? Well, if you can't > see that the bad guys are indeed the bad guys then I > think you need to have your (general) compass adjusted. > > I don't really think you can take the evil action of > an evil person out of their moral context just so it > can be presented as 'morally neutral'. Context is > everything. In the right context, nearly anything > can be justified. In the context of Harry and other > 'white hats' using Unforgivables, I think they can > be forgiven. They are still wrong, but they are > understandable and forgivable. > > By extension, there is no such thing as a morally > neutral action. It is by moral context that we > determine who is good and who is evil, who are the > terrorists and who are the freedom fighters. > > Or at least that's how I see it. > > Steve/bboyminn Prep0strus: The problem, as I see it, is that JKR has set us up one way, and then followed through another. Often, in fiction (and for some also, in reality) there are moral absolutes. And I think that's what many of us were expecting in these books. Children's literature is often more clear in these regards. And while JKR did have some murkiness - we do see our heroes participating in some less than savory activities, I was led to believe that some things were beyond ambiguity, beyond absolution. Dark Magic. Unforgiveables. Dementors. Horcruxes. these didn't seem to have shades of grey in JKR's world. They were all terribly horrible, evil things, that by their very nature have nothing redeeming about them. It didn't seem to matter that the definition of dark magic was confusing, or that one might find a good use for some or all of these things. They simply came off (to me) as the epitome of evil. Ways to identify that something was beyond the pale. I'm ok with a world of context and wiggle room, but I don't feel that that was what I was set up for. I feel I was prepared for a world in which certain things were simply wrong, and that Good would fight against evil with one hand tied behind its back and still prevail, because that is what Good does. It is having that setup, and then having Harry perform Unforgiveables (and, in the case of crucio, NEEDLESS unforgiveables, imo), that is so disconcerting. I don't feel that the story prepared me for that, or did an adequate job in either saying - 'Harry did something that was wrong', or in saying, 'the world isn't the way we view it as children - there are not moral absolutes'. It just... happened. And that's what I found dissatisfying. Of course, I think what is all the more dissatisfying is the mechanics that allow Harry to simply perform these spells with no training when it takes him a thousand tries to learn the simplest of spells. Perhaps if JKR had taken the time to show us how harry had the ability to do them, she would also have taken the time to show us how he and the world were morally equipped for them. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 5 17:55:04 2007 From: jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net (jbmwfb69) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:55:04 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldemort related or not? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176728 It said in book 7 that Voldemort's Gaunt relatives were descended from the Peverells. If that is true do you think that Harry is related to Voldemort in a way because Harry Potter is descended from the third son Ignotus? jbmwfb69 From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 17:16:40 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (JP Smith) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 10:16:40 -0700 Subject: Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? References: <8ee758b40709050548t42463e81g11858e445b3442bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176729 montims: Good question... Sydney Carton of The Tale of Two Cities? Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights? They're off the top of my head - I shall be interested to read others' thoughts. I do think, however, we must look to British literature for this kind of character, though I'm not sure why I think this - I must hurry to go to work now, but will ponder this... JP: That's a very valid point Janette, and seeing as how very British the novels are, its quite possibly that she (J.K.) pulled from older british novels. I wouldn't discount the affect that globalization has had on the writing process, with so much accessibility to world literature in the past 20 years, it's also just as possible that the make-up of Snape be Japanese as well as British. But I think it's far more possible to be Dickension here rather than Noh :P Check this out: The Byronic hero is an idealized, but flawed, character exemplified in the life and writings of Lord Byron, characterized by his ex-lover Lady Caroline Lamb as being "mad, bad and dangerous to know".[1] The Byronic hero first appears in Byron's semi-autobiographical epic narrative poem Childe Harold's Pilgrimage (1812-18). The Byronic hero has the following characteristics: a.. conflicting emotions, bipolar tendencies, or moodiness b.. self-critical and introspective c.. struggles with integrity d.. a distaste for social institutions and social norms e.. being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw f.. a lack of respect for rank and privilege g.. a troubled past h.. being cynical, demanding, and/or arrogant i.. often self-destructive j.. loner, often rejected from society How many of those does Snape fit? Qutie a few I think. Is it possible that Rowling based Snape on the Byronic archetype? I think so but I also find that highly doubtful as there are some very obvious differences. I think this is close but we must keep looking to unravel this mystery. I really think it is more modern than the Gothics, too. It just feels that way. I swear to God this is haunting me, I must figure it out! JP From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 18:48:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:48:45 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176730 lizzyben wrote: > > OK... so there's a distinction between "dark magic" & "Dark Magic" that's never been outlined in the books at all? What is the distinction? Is it simply that it's (lower-case) dark magic when our side does it and (upper-case) Dark Magic when people we don't like do it? Carol responds: We need to look at canon (not that it's consistent, but it's the place to start). When and by whom and in what context are the terms "Dark arts," "Dark wizard," and "Dark magic" used? (I agree that there's no canonical distinction between "dark" and "Dark"; only JKR's off-the-cuff attempt to distinguish between jinxes, hexes, and curses, which doesn't fit canon at all since it puts, say, the Conjunctivitis Curse or the Leg-Locker Curse, aka Locomotor Mortis). Where to start? How about Knockturn Alley or curses and spells used *only* by known Dark wizards and particularly Voldemort. Horcruxes and the unnatural resurrection magic performed by Wormtail and possession, used only by Voldemort to control his victims and in Quirrell's case, use up his life force, is surely also Dark magic. Or how about what's taught in the DADA classes (other than Umbridge's)? The focus in the first through third years, especially in Lupin's class, seems to be on Dark creatures (as distinct from "magical creatures" like Unicorns and Knarls and Hippogriffs). Dark creatures are easy enough to identify and always labeled as such, and we can definitely see a range of "darkness" or at least of danger in them, from the mischievous Cornish Pixies released by Lockhart to Dementors, the foulest of Dark creatures, soulless and evil despite a humanlike appearance when they're cloaked. (I suppose we could include Blast-Ended Skrewts as Dark, but since they were bred by Hagrid and are otherwise nonexistent, we can safely leave them off the list.) Werewolves are Dark creatures once a month; Dementors and Inferi are always Dark--irredeemabe and unreformable and permanently perilous. (Vampires, oddly, seem to be essentially harmless and comic. Strangely.) The Dark Arts, covered by Fake!Moody in GoF and Snape in HBP, are another matter. Fake!Moody focuses on curses, even using the Imperius Curse on students. (I think it was an excuse to force them to do his bidding, but, oh, well.) He also hexes them as a "test" to see whether they can protect themselves (so he says). We're not told that he actually teaches them any defensive spells; if he did, Hermione wouldn't have had to look up Protego and Impedimenta (another "curse"!) in the library. Snape, our resident Dark Arts/DADA expert, mentions Inferi as the creations of Dark wizards, which surely indicates that they are produced using Dark magic. (The whole idea of making corpses obey your will seems DArk without our having to be told so.) In addition to practicing nonverbal defensive spells, his DADA classes study the Unforgiveable Curses (not how to perform them, however!) and Dementors (including an unspecified defense against them other than the Patronus Charm, which I suspect must be Occlumency). Anyway, I'm working from memory here, but I'm suggesting places to look. DADA is "Defense Against the Dark Arts," so what, exactly, are the students being taught to defend themselves against? What is sold in Knockturn Alley that isn't sold in Diagon Alley? What magic is performed by known Dark wizards that isn't performed by, erm, non-Dark ones? Is the Unbreakable Vow, which involves the death of the oath breaker, Dark? (I'd say it is.) What about curses that have no countercurse or poisons with no antidote? Are poisons in general, at least, magical poisons, Dark magic? (That horrible potion protecting the locket Horcrux (and the fake one) surely is. If, say, Dumbledore had created that potion, surely it would still be Dark magic. It isn't Dark simply because Voldemort created it. The Unforgiveable Curses cause excruciating pain or instant death (with no countercurse) or an invasion of the mind and robbing of the will which for lack of a better term we can call mind rape. Apparently, good wizards can use them without becoming Dark themselves, but nevertheless, these curses do seem to be Dark magic. But, apparently, some magic is *so* Dark (Horcruxes, the creation of Inferi, possession) that only a Dark wizard would use it. Are we any closer to a definition or to something resembling consistency in JKR's use of the term? Can we please look at canon? Carol, thinking that perhaps JKR's ideas changed as she wrote and spells that she originally labeled "curses" became "jinxes" (as for "counterjinxes," what the heck are they?) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 18:53:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:53:23 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176731 --- "AnitaKH" wrote: > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: > Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Chapter 2, > 'In Memoriam' > > Questions: > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. > What was your reaction the first time you read this? > bboyminn: I though Harry was mistaken but not by much. I suspected lazy Dudley didn't want to have to deal with his cup of tea, so he set it outside Harry's door. Though no doubt Dudley went downstairs minutes after placing the cup and didn't both to take it with him. Generally, when I come to little details like this I just keep reading and assume if it is important it will eventually be explained. > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to > teaching healing charms. Is this a flaw in the > curriculum? ... > bboyminn: For many years now, I have felt it was a flaw in the curriculum. Though we don't know for sure that there is not a Healing Arts Club at the school. A place where those with an interest can learn the art. I suspect the reason Healing is not taught is because it would encourage kids to go to other kids when the injured themselves, instead of going to Madam Pomphey. Though I think Madam Pomphey does a good job of 'not asking too many questions', so students do feel they can go to her without getting into trouble. Still, I think especially after Third year some basic healing art could be introduced. Then more intense spells and charms could be added in upper NEWT classes. They seem like important spells to know for anyone living in the rough and tumble wizard world. I also think 'house-holdie' spell should be learned. I suggested this when I was in school; a boy's home economics class. They laughed. A few years later though, boy were allowed to take a class called 'bachelor living'. I think Hogwarts needs the equivalent of these classes too. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione > will know healing charms? Is he right? > bboyminn: Well, Hermione is likely to know everything, at least, that's how Harry and Ron would see it, and if I remember correctly, Hermione said she knew some healing spells but had never used them, so she wasn't confident enough to use them on an injured Ron for fear of actually making things worse. > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings > back the old memories and feelings, but he suppresses > them quickly. How does this demonstrate the progress > has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > bboyminn: I think Harry is progressing like any other kids. At some point you discover that tantrums and yelling and screaming are counter-productive, and so you stop. Also, I see Harry doing what anyone would do. He has grieved for Sirius, and now it is time to move on. So, when the feelings come, he knows he can't wallow in them. The time for grieving over, what can't be changed is gone, now it's time for the living. I also object to this girly-girly idea that everyone should always share and express their inner most thoughts and feelings. That every bit of knowledge should be dumped on everyone around you and that no secret should be kept to yourself. That's a good way to annoy the hell out of your friends and get yourself and lot of other people killed in war time. > > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about > what Harry packs. Why do you think she wanted to > name each item? > bboyminn: Well, if she had only spoken about the mirror, we would have know with certainty that it was important. By mixing it in with a bunch of other stuff, we really can't be sure what is important and what is not. Also, I think it sets the mood and the tone for what Harry is about to do. All his school books are left behind. It makes it clear that Harry has abandon school for a greater purpose. I think it does a nice job of setting the mood for Harry future actions. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined > to withhold information, .. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, > is he trained to be secretive or would he have been > anyway? .. > bboyminn: Again, this girly-girly idea that every intimate thought and personal detail must be shared. People are allowed to have private lives. There are some things that are none of your business, and Dumbledore is perfectly within his rights to keep private family matters private. I don't hold that against him in the slightest. Yes, Dumbledore has his secrets, back then and now. Back then, the secrets were simply private, now, his secret are critical and vital to success. So, I completely understand Dumbledore right and need for privacy and secrecy. > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to > luminaries such as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and > Waffling. We know Bathilda has a role later in Rita > Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? > bboyminn: I'm not convinced that Bathilda shared anything. I think it far more likely that whatever information Rita got she stole from or coerced out of Bathilda. I wouldn't trust Rita any farther than I could throw a Hypogryph by the gonads. > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and > Grindelwald become friends. How much did/didn't Doge > know about their friendship? > bboyminn: As others have said, the relationship was short and Doge wasn't around. Again, Dumbledore has a right to privacy, and I'm sure this was a painful part of his life. Both due to his sister being killed and due to how readily he had been seduced by thoughts of power. > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but > clearly is reporting from second-hand (at best) > sources. Are we looking at a duel that grew in > legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? > bboyminn: If I recall correctly it was said that there were witnesses to the Duel, and their accounts said it was /scary fierce/. True that is second hand because we only hear about the accounts, we don't hear them from actual witnesses. But I see no reason to believe a duel between these two great wizards, one with the (allegedly) unbeatable wand, would be anything other than incredibly intense. > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry > realizes he was very bad at asking questions. Is this > a JKR sop to readers' frustration with his lack of > curiosity, or do you think she had always planned for > Harry to have this realization? > bboyminn: No, I just see this as normal. Haven't you ever known someone who has died, and consequently though of all the things that were left unsaid. We natural proceed through life as if there was all the time in the world. Plenty of time to say all those things that now can never be said or asked. That's just human nature. Also, while their relationship was genial, it was also very formal. Regardless of their fondness for each other, and regardless of how friendly it was, it was not a balanced relationship. Dumbledore was Headmaster of the School and had great authority over Harry. Plus, Dumbledore was infinitely older, wiser, and more experienced that Harry. That doesn't make for an open, 'ask me anything' type of relationship. Guys respect boundaries, sometime to the extreme. I'm sure there are many details of Ron's life that Harry doesn't know simply because he didn't feel it was his place to ask. If Ron wanted Harry to know, Ron would tell him. But by the same token, guys don't volunteer a lot of unnecessary information. We can go on and on for hours about the latest Quidditch matches, but mere seconds in more than enough to cover the personal stuff. Now, Harry wishes he had asked, but in the moment, I don't think Harry, and reasonably so, thought it was his right, or valid in the context of their relationship, to ask Dumbledore personal questions. > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer > frankly the one personal question he asked. What's > the likelihood Dumbledore would have answered any of > Harry's personal questions frankly? > bboyminn: I'm assuming this is an extension of the question above. I suspect Dumbledore would have answered to a degree, but at the same time, he would have felt no obligation divulge things he felt were private. He would have been polite, but he would have refused or avoided questions he did not feel were appropriate to answer. Again, Dumbledore has a right to privacy. Just because you want to know doesn't mean he is obligated to tell. > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, > calling her relationship with Harry Potter "close." > Did this mislead you on the first read, or did you > suspect some of what she found was true? > bboyminn: As others have said, Rita bases her clear and outright lies in a grain of truth. That makes them very powerful lies. But mostly she is 'spinning'. She is saying whatever she has to say to sell books. She it trying to tantalize and titillate. She is selling non-story wrapped up in scandal which is what every tabloid does. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than > once in this chapter and has been known since book 1, > yet it never figures into the denouement. Any > speculation? > bboyminn: I think since Harry's thoughts are on Dumbledore it is only natural that they should turn to Dumbledore's accomplishments. I never really thought Dragon's Blood would ever be significant other than as a detail of Dumbledore's life. > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with > Harry as "unhealthy." While she is mining for > sensation, how much of this do you think has a ring > of truth? > bboyminn: Again tantalize, scandalize, and titillate; Rita at her finest. Who could not rush out to buy the book with a burning desire to know the juicy details of this 'unhealthy' relationship? Again, pure spin meant to sell books. > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's > report insinuates sensational scandal. Which one is > more honest? Do both withhold certain truths? > bboyminn: Doge's tribute was colored by years of friendship and loyalty. Rita's report was colored by greed. Rita takes simple truths and twist them into scandal because bad news sells. Doge, as a true friend, simply prefers to remember the good times and the good man. > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in > the mirror the first time you read the book? bboyminn: I think for a brief fleeting second I considered Aberforth. But usually I don't try to resolve these mysteries as I read. I figure either we will eventually know, otherwise it's not really important. In the moment my most critical thought and desire is to simply keep reading. I did not think it was Dumbledore no matter how hard the books try to set the notion into my head. I had long ago accepted the Dumbledore was dead. Hope I've managed to touch on some unique aspects. Steve/bboyminn From xellina at gmail.com Wed Sep 5 18:49:59 2007 From: xellina at gmail.com (Cassy Ferris) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 22:49:59 +0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <463f9ec00709051149x55bc6s62d5121142fa0820@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176732 2007/9/5, salo.krano : > Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime during > these nineteen years? Cassy: She claims she would never do it, but you can never know with those authours :) Right now, JRK has only spoken of a possibility of her writing an encyclopedia, depicting life stories of characters not mentioned in epilogue. Anyway,.I doubt that Harry will have much to do between 1999 and 2018. Hunt some DEs, get married, yes, but it will be more a romantic novel, nothing nearly as dramatic as DH. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 5 19:09:23 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:09:23 -0000 Subject: Ministry and Dementors/Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176733 > Magpie: > I don't think Lupin is anthropomorphizing. I think he's a DADA > professor telling us the truth about Dementors and that this is why > they are a sign of underlying corruption in the Ministry and are > considered Dark Creatures. I don't think we're shown Dementors in > enough detail to say that they don't really have feelings and that > Lupin is exaggerating, and I think they're going to Voldemort > indicates that as well. > > Reading into it that Lupin is exaggerating and they're really > neutral, etc., just seems to me less straightforward when they > author seems to me to be putting this stuff in to show something > else. They are truly Dark Creatures. Jen: Yes, Dark Creatures. I was pointing out that Lupin presents them as both predators and what I'd call very low-level sentient beings at the same time, which is how they act the rest of the story. Maybe they 'glory' in decay - I never saw anything that looked like glorying in my understanding of the term, but whatever, it's not that important. Mainly I'm saying that yes, I understand they are Dark Creatures. As for the rest of it, I'm sure if JKR was asked why Dementors are a symbol for corruption in the MOM she'd probably say something like, "They eat souls! Of course the MOM is corrupt for associating with them." I still see what I see just like you do. Jen, bowing out. From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 5 19:08:18 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:08:18 -0400 Subject: "Dodgy" Doge and his "stupid hat" Was: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176734 Carol said that Alastor should have been a name for a bad guy. On the contrary, it is a perfect name for someone like Moody. The daemon Alastor, in Greek mythology, relentlessly hunted down evildoers in order to bring them to justice. (The reason the film--if you will forgive the mention--had him wearing a kilt was that although the name is Greek, it does sound a lot like the Scottish name Alasdair.) 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 cldrolet at sympatico.ca Wed Sep 5 19:13:58 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:13:58 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore's age Message-ID: <001b01c7eff0$ea3cef80$b1c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 176735 Random832: >>Why not just NOT write a book that depends on mathematical formulas, birthdates, etc.? I'm a bit confused with your assertion that the HP series _does_ to any significant extent depend on such things.<< I'm not sure what you're saying but I'll try to explain myself. She made the series depend on dates when she dated CoS. I believe JKR started the whole dating-of-the-books/I'm so bad at math saga when she wrote, in CoS: "Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," said Nearly Headless Nick. (Can Ed, pg 99) followed by: "and, in pride of place, an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words, 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st October, 1492'." Prior to that, no one could really say that the events of PS took place in this year or that year. But because of that one date, Potterites everywhere knew that October, in Cos, was meant to be 1992. If she had written something, perhaps, as she did in OotP: " 'Regulus Black'. A date of death (some fifteen years previously) followed the date of birth." (Can Ed, pg 104) the whole backdating of the story, trying to figure out exact birthdays, days certain events took place, etc., could not have happened. It was JKR's decision to include a date that would start the whole ball rolling (pardon the pun). Then, of course, she created a timeline that was included (I've heard) with the DVD of Philosopher's Stone. If she didn't want the series dated - brought down to numbers - have people checking mooncharts and star charts calendars, etc., - she should have not started it in the first place. That is all I am saying. She could have saved herself - and Potterville - a world of trouble, if she had never written "1492". CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 5 19:30:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:30:27 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176736 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > According to chapter seventeen of The Deathly Hallows (Bathilda's > Secret), we know that James & Lilly Potter died on the 31st October > 1981. > > Eleven years later Harry started attending Hogwarts. > > A quick calculation would therefore indicate that the Deathly Hallows > is set in the year 1999. > > J.K. Rowling ends the Deathly Hallows 19 years later with Harry's > children James and Albus going off to Hogwarts, this being Albus' > first term. > > 1999 plus 19 would make that year 2018, this would indicate that > James was born last year; and Albus this year. > > Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime during > these nineteen years? > > I for one would like to know what happened to him after defeating the > Dark Lord. Geoff: I'm sorry to fault your Maths but Harry was born on 31st July 1980. He was 15 months old when his parents were killed. Therefore, he turned eleven on 31/07/91. Hence, he started at Hogwarts in September 1991 and would have entered the Upper Sixth in September 1997. So, the action of DH takes place during the academic year 1997/98. JKR has intimated on several occasions that she does not intend to write another book except for the Encyclopaedia which has been mentioned. Hopefully, we might get some decent fanfic to fill in the gap...... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 19:32:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:32:09 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again (was: Dark Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176737 zeldaricdeau wrote: I don't believe that, at the time, Marietta was involved in an actual war, and I certainly don't think she saw herself as being involved in one. Carol responds: Or if she did see herself as involved in a war, it was between Dumbledore and the Ministry, for which her mother worked and which her parents had told her not to oppose. As a reluctant member of *Dumbledore's Army,* she would have seen herself as fighting for the wrong side, especially when Harry started to teach the Patronus Charm, specifically intended for use against Dementors, which at that time had not yet sided with Voldemort. (Even the Dementors sent to Little Whinging, which Marietta had no way of knowing about, were sent by Umbridge.) To fight Dementors was to fight the Ministry. For Harry and his friends, the DA was a way of fighting both Umbridge and Voldemort, but for the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs, it was mostly a way of preparing for their DADA OWLs. (Marietta, a sixth year like Cho, would already have passed hers.) Harry refused to explain what had happened in the graveyard. He presented no evidence that Voldemort was really back until he gave his Quibbler interview in February (and who's going to believe the Quibbler?). So, for Marietta, Voldemort's return was a lie; opposing Umbridge was opposing the Ministry; and Dumbledore's Army was formed for exactly the reason Umbridge thought it was, to oppose the Ministry and Cornelius Fudge. I'm not defending Marietta, exactly. She should have stood up to Cho and refused to attend the first meeting. Since signing her name meant that she was agreeing not to tell *anybody*, including her mother and her HoH, Flitwick, not just Umbridge, she shouldn't have signed. (Nevertheless, I think it was underhanded of Hermione not to tell anyone about the jinx on the parchment.) But my point is that the "war" Marietta thought was going on was between Dumbledore and the Ministry. She didn't believe that Voldemort was back, so she was in no way siding with Voldemort, as Eggplant seems to imply. Carol, who otherwise agrees with zeldaricdeau's post From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 19:56:02 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 19:56:02 -0000 Subject: Does Potterverse depend on numbers? WAS: Re: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: <001b01c7eff0$ea3cef80$b1c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176738 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > I'm not sure what you're saying but I'll try to explain myself. She made the series depend on dates when she dated CoS. > > I believe JKR started the whole dating-of-the-books/I'm so bad at math saga when she wrote, in CoS: "Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," said Nearly Headless Nick. (Can Ed, pg 99) followed by: "and, in pride of place, an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words, 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st October, 1492'." Prior to that, no one could really say that the events of PS took place in this year or that year. But because of that one date, Potterites everywhere knew that October, in Cos, was meant to be 1992. > She could have saved herself - and Potterville - a world of trouble, if she had never written "1492". Alla: You mean every time poor author mentions **one** date in the series, that means the book is dependent on dates? YES, I wish she never wrote that date as well, but not because that made me calculating the dates in the book at all. That just made the fandom go calculating and I am not sure she meant that at all. By the same token I can say that she only meant for that date to be that - the date of Nick's death - no more, no less. Authors screw the dates to make everything that they need come together in the plot often and I do not think story suffers much from it. IMO of course. The example I brought up in past discussions was Jules Verne "Mystery Island". Did he screw the dates to bring up the characters from other two books of the trilogy? Oh YES - badly. Do I care? Not at all and while respect, will never understand why it matters much. While **80 days around the world** by Jules Verne of course depends on the math - book main revelation is built around that. What kind of revelation in Potterverse is built around numbers and math? Alla, who really sympathises with JKR over maths. From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 20:09:41 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:09:41 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again (was: Dark Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176739 > > zeldaricdeau wrote: > > > > I don't believe that, at the time, Marietta was involved > > in an actual war, and I certainly don't think she saw herself as > > being involved in one. > Carol responds: > > Or if she did see herself as involved in a war, it was between > Dumbledore and the Ministry, for which her mother worked and > which her parents had told her not to oppose. zeldaricdeau again: Sorry, I should have clarified. I was saying that I don't think she saw herself as being involved in a war against Voldemort or in any such clearly defined full scale "war" (as in the kind of war we see happening in DH) between good and evil. I would agree that it is very possible that her betrayal of DA was influenced by her mother's position at the Ministry. So, while I don't like what she did, I feel somewhat sorry for her that she ended up with permanent scarring because of it (yes, I know many people ended up far worse and I feel far worse for them, but it doesn't eliminate the small bit of sympathy I have for Marietta, traitor to the DA or not). Maybe she did see herself as involved in a battle between good and evil, but if so, I suspect she saw herself as working for the good side. > > For Harry and his friends, the DA was a way of fighting both > Umbridge and Voldemort, but for the Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs, > it was mostly a way of preparing for their DADA OWLs. (Marietta, > a sixth year like Cho, would already have passed hers.) zeldaricdeau: Indeed. The real necessity of DA was only really known and fully understood by a few people, and I don't think Marietta was one of them. > > I'm not defending Marietta, exactly. She should have stood up to Cho > and refused to attend the first meeting. zeldaricdeau: Yes, she should have. Her crime is essentially breach of contract which was wrong and which I'm sure she knew would lead to some nasty punishments. She may have enjoyed breaching it and getting DA in trouble, I'm not sure, and if so I would admonish her for that. > (Nevertheless, I think it was underhanded of Hermione not > to tell anyone about the jinx on the parchment.) zeldaricdeau: There's something about the jinx I don't like. It's something I wouldn't normally expect of Hermione since she's generally strongly driven by principle. Not that I think it makes her evil or a "Dark Witch." I just don't think it was right of her under the circumstances. -ZR From sydpad at yahoo.com Wed Sep 5 20:12:02 2007 From: sydpad at yahoo.com (Sydney) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:12:02 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40709050548t42463e81g11858e445b3442bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176740 John Paul Smith wrote: >However, and what I have been > > racking my brain about is "Where does Snape fit in this equation?" > > Not Star Wars mind you but as an archetypal character? I have been > > racking my brain about him and I can't seem to locate one. The > > closest I come is close to an anti-hero but it doesn't quite fit, > > does it? A good example of modern anti-hero is Travis Bickle in > > Taxi Driver. But Snape always does the right thing throughout > > the course of the books. Maybe not his past history, but through > > the series he does, yes? So he is good, but he can't allow people > > to know. Why? Therein is the issue I think. > > > montims: > I do think, however, we must look to British > literature for this kind of character Sydney: :D I love this kind of topic, and HP is particularily good for, "I've seen this guy somewhere before..." It's the Name That Tune of books! Snape is a felicitous composite of a couple of characters I think. In terms of the "Mean Teacher", he's a fairly direct ripoff of Mr. King, Head of a rival House in Kipling's "Stalky & Co.", the grandaddy of all Boarding-school novels (great-grandaddy being "Tom Brown's Schooldays", whence the twinkling all-wise headmaster comes from). OMG! *slaps forehead* MR. KING! The Half-Blood PRINCE!! That's hilarious-- I recognized the character but this is the first time I got the name thing. Anyhow, here's some flavour of Mr. King: "It happened to be King, in gown and mortar-board, enjoying a Saturday evening prowl before dinner. "Locked doors! Locked doors!" he snapped with a scowl. "What's the meaning of this; and what, may I ask, is the intention of this--this epicene attire?" "As usual!" sneered King. "Futile foolery just when your careers, such as they may be, are hanging in the balance. I see! Ah, I see!" Anyways, he's always prowling in his black robes and sneering and being sarcastic and trying to catch Our Heroes in expellable mischief, and then being made to look ridiculous. And then of course... it's kind of hard not to think of that other wizarding school dungeons-inhabiting potions teacher who hates the protagonist, Constance Hardbroom in "The Worst Witch"... anyone hankering for an HP fix should obviously turn to this great (pre-HP series, also a TV series, wasn't it?) A nice HP/Worst Witch comparison here http://www.geocities.com/audrahammer/hpvsww.html Now, strict schoolteacher with working-class roots and rage issues, passionately in love with a Pure Heroine but losing her to a loathed arrogant rival.. hmmmmm... Bradley Headstone in Dickens' "Our Mutual Friend" of course. Meh, I can't find a sufficiently short quote to illustrate the parallel.. something else "Our Mutual Friend" and HP have in common, is I think I'll always conveniently forget the ending that makes a nonesense out of half the story! Oh well! Moving right along, so.. schoolmasters.. unrequited love.. of course we need to bring in Sidney Carton at this point as has already been mentioned. Quotage: "To none. No, Miss Manette, to none. If you will hear me through a very little more, all you can ever do for me is done. I wish you to know that you have been the last dream of my soul. In my degradation I have not been so degraded but that the sight of you with your father, and of this home made such a home by you, has stirred old shadows that I thought had died out of me. Since I knew you, I have been troubled by a remorse that I thought would never reproach me again, and have heard whispers from old voices impelling me upward, that I thought were silent for ever. I have had unformed ideas of striving afresh, beginning anew, shaking off sloth and sensuality, and fighting out the abandoned fight. A dream, all a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that you inspired it." *sniffle* He also has long black hair that hangs around his face and is sarcastic and loses the Pure Heroine to hated rival and people think he's being bad when he's being good yadda yadda. JKR said she cried and cried when Carton sacrificed himself for everyone.. strangely, she seems to have thought to herself, "That was great, but it would be even better if, rather than being a sarcastic loner disliked by everyone, the martyr was an adorable orphan beloved by all!" Whatever. Next: tormented self-loathing spies, and again with the unrequited love, with a heaping side of guilt: the impossibly Snapey Razumov from Joseph Conrad's "Under Western Eyes". Ah, he fills a Snape-shaped hole in my life, kind of like the one in that window in Hogwarts *cue poignant music with inexplicable looney-tunes angle* You could write an entire Snape fic just by cutting and pasting bits of this. Here, I'll start: "It occurred to me that his face was really of the very mobile sort, and that the absolute stillness of it was the acquired habit of a revolutionist, of a conspirator everlastingly on his guard against self-betrayal in a world of secret spies." Oh, I'll indulge myself, a bit more: "Take care, Razumov, my good friend. If you carry on like this you will go mad. You are angry with everybody and bitter with yourself, and on the look out for something to torment yourself with." "It's intolerable!" Razumov could only speak in gasps. "You must admit that I can have no illusions on the attitude which it isn't clear or rather only too clear." He made a gesture of despair. It was not his courage that failed him. The choking fumes of falsehood had taken him by the throat?the thought of being condemned to struggle on and on in that tainted atmosphere without the hope of ever renewing his strength by a breath of fresh air." I should add that this novel (not Conrad's best, but still awesome) has a fantastic and appropriately ironic end for Razumov, that would have been perfect for Snape. Oh well! Lastly... character who is mean but actually good but misunderstood by everyone and Not the Villain... isn't that like, nearly every Scooby-doo plot? -- Sydney From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 5 19:20:30 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:20:30 -0400 Subject: Harry and Voldemort related or not? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176741 Well, all the old Wizardling families were related. Molly was a Prewitt by birth, and we see a couple of Blacks marrying into the Prewitts, for example. But as the Gaunts had been marrying each other for some time, the relationship would have been rather distant. 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 Wed Sep 5 20:33:34 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:33:34 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's age Message-ID: <25083593.1189024414458.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176742 From: melhersheybar >> Renee: >> Then this is probably not going to help: If DD died at the end of >> Harry's sixth year, 1996 ought to be 1997. Mel: >Another problem with math and DD's age that is much bigger, IMO, is >the fact that he dueled with Grindelwald in 1945 when, according to >jkrowling.com, he was 64 years old (he is wizard of the month this >month and his year of birth is listed as 1881). Bart: To which I reply, "ARRRRRRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!" How many effing (perfectly good HP term) birthdates are we going to HAVE for that man????? Here's the thing. I have been trying to get a handle on what DID happen to Arianna. Now, all we have is from Abe the Goat, and he was very non-specific. But this, in and of itself, is a clue, because it has to have been something which was sufficiently bad that he wouldn't say it out loud. However, the year in which it took place (or, more precisely, the decade) also has a lot to do with it. What was the attitude towards witches at the time? The long-term effects imply either brain injury or rape. But if it were the former, why didn't Abe say something like, "beat her almost to death"? In the 1850's, there was on standard, in the 1920's another. But now we are looking more or less to the late 1880's/early 1890's for the attack. I'll have to do some research. >Harry about Grindelwald, he mentions watching GW become more and more >powerful for something like five years, before he finally realized he >would have to fight him. He and Grindelwald were friends for several >months when they were in their early 20s - after the fight where >Arianna died, Grindelwald began showing his true colors. Here, I have fewer problems. I just assume that it took a few decades for Waldo to start getting into a position of power. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 5 20:51:12 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 16:51:12 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Next for Harry? Message-ID: <11160920.1189025472823.JavaMail.root@mswamui-swiss.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176743 From: "salo.krano" >Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime during >these nineteen years? Chapter 1: One year later. "What do you want to do today, Ginny?" asked Harry. "I don't know." replied Ginny. "What do YOU want to do?" "I don't know." said Harry. "What do YOU want to do?" ---- Are you REALLY sure you want a book about those years? Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 5 20:56:51 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:56:51 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176744 zeldaricdeau" > How do we objectively determine > who deserves what? You do the best you can. You don't really expect me to give a more detailed answer than that do you; philosophers have been arguing about that for thousands of years. > I don't believe that, at the time, > Marietta was involved in an actual war Dumbledore called it a war, Harry called it a war, and the organization she betrayed was called Dumbledore's ARMY. > and I certainly don't think she saw > herself as being involved in one. Then she was dead wrong and when you make an error of that colossal magnitude you can expect to pay a price. "Carol" wrote: > She would have seen herself as fighting > for the wrong side, It could be, of course she'd have to be a moral imbecile, but it could be. However to tell the truth I don't much care how she saw herself, I see her as a traitor. > I think it was underhanded of Hermione not > to tell anyone about the jinx on the parchment. If people just kept their word that jinx was of no importance, if they don't keep their word, well, I don't believe it is common practice for gorilla resistance organizations to make life easy for potential traitors. Harry received scars for doing the right thing so I just can't work up any tears over Marietta receiving scars for doing the wrong thing. I lost all respect for Cho too the instant she started defending Marietta, up to then I rather liked her. > She didn't believe that Voldemort was back And she was wrong, dead wrong. In your post you imply that she had one erroneous idea after another after another, but you seem to forget there are consequences when you are that wrong about so many things. And by the end of book 5 everybody knew Harry was right and Voldemort was back, but did she apologies for her treacherous behavior? Nope, not in book 5,6 or 7. If it had been me I'd be totally ashamed of myself and I certainly wouldn't be complaining about pimples, I'd think I deserved the disfigurement. Eggplant From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 5 20:58:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 20:58:38 -0000 Subject: Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176745 > Magpie: > I would agree that Harry and Frodo have little in common, though I > don't see much in common between Harry and Sam either. I have trouble > with the whole "Sam never fails" idea, because while it's certainly > true that he never fails, Sam *would* have failed if he carried the > ring as well, because the task itself was impossible. It's not like > killing Voldemort where you just have to do the right thing, it's that > you *can't* do it unless you are literally God, which Sam was not. Pippin: As far as the plot goes, killing Voldemort was much more like destroying the Lord of the Nazgul, who was originally human, owed his unnatural and soulless remnant of life to evil magic and who thought he was protected by a prophecy. His death seems to be a matter of chance, but is actually tied to his destruction of a beloved father figure, his attack on a beautiful, desperate and fearless woman, and his hubris in overlooking the hidden enemy who wields the one weapon which could render him killable. There are of course elements of all this in Voldemort's demise. Voldemort, though he has become a monster, is of human origin. He has destroyed Harry's father and the threat to his mother woke the "slow-kindled courage" that was buried in Snape's Slytherin heart (She should not die, so fair, so desperate! At least she should not die alone, unaided. ) Voldemort, like the Nazgul, recognizes that the enemy who stands before him may fulfill the prophecy but chooses to ignore it. And he thinks no more of his hidden enemy than of a worm in the mud. Indeed, Harry's journey is much more like that of the young Hobbits, Merry and Pippin. They rescue some good guys, and destroy some bad guys, but unlike Frodo and Sam, they don't face any serious moral challenge. Their real quest is for wisdom, which they learn by facing death. zeldaricdeau: (who thinks the most obvious and rather annoying Tolkien reference was the whole wearing the locket/carrying the Ring makes you bad bit: why on Earth did they have to WEAR it anyway?) Pippin: Oh yes! But there was a point to it, IMO. No doubt you've noticed that the Hallows echo the properties of the One Ring? The cloak makes you invisible, the wand gives you power of command, the stone gives you access to the shadow world, and together they offer a dubious immortality. Sounds familiar, no? But the Hallows do not corrupt. They can tempt people to great folly, and terrible mistakes, but they can't make them *want* to do evil. Only the horcruxes, which feed on the deepest fears, can do that. This suggests that JKR's moral system seems murky because we are trying to make it accord with the conventional morality of LOTR and Star Wars in which the desire for power is the root of all evil. JKR, I humbly submit, has a different agenda. In her universe, *fear* is the root of all evil. The Hallows are good when they are used wisely. The ability to deceive (as the I-cloak does) is not evil when deception is used to protect others. To have power is not evil when the power one has is love. To seek to live is not evil, but neither is it evil to recognize death when the time to die is at hand. We are all marching towards death, every moment, as surely as Harry in the forest, though most of us can't see it coming. The I-cloak is a lovely metaphor. Every moment of life is a gift from Death. "Use it wisely." The Hallows, misused or misunderstood, can be ruinous. But in canon anyone can make a mistake. That suggests that mistakes are not evil. To trust the wrong person, or indeed the wrong ideology, is not evil. It is folly: ruinous, terrible folly, but in JKR's world it is not evil, IMO. It is only evil to cling to folly when the truth has been revealed because one is too much of a coward to change. Like Merry and Pippin, Harry at first fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the world he has fallen into and the task he and his companions will have to complete. If he had understood at first what was before him, he, like the young Hobbits, would have thought it mad and cruel. He would have tried to stop it. Also like Pippin, Harry overlooks evil when it is hidden in what is obviously supposed to be good. He sometimes acts wrongly and foolishly, and he tells himself so, though he does not listen. In his folly, Harry sees Slytherin as the path of moral deterioration and Gryffindor as the path of moral progress. But funnily enough all the character arcs of Slytherin are stories of progress: Draco, Snape, Slughorn and Regulus all end as better people than they began -- even Voldemort finds that Harry's blood has given him an unwanted chance to restore his humanity. ("Why, he says in GoF, "I'm becoming quite sentimental" and then he can't repress a moment of connection with his Death Eaters: "My true family returns!" ) He actually seems put out to realize that the DE's have come back out of fear rather than loyalty. But it passes. Voldie prefers his old ways. He is the magical equivalent of a psychopath, and yet his doom falls, IMO, not because he cannot feel any connection with humanity, but because he fears and denies humanity any connection with him. He does not value Bella's love, or Snape's seemingly faithful service. He does not even want his connection with Slytherin House, except to deny all that it stands for. He attempts to destroy the Sorting Hat in which the brain of his supposedly honored ancestor still resides, and then he puts forward the notion which would have horrified old Salazar, that *anyone* with magical blood is good enough for his house, never mind whether they're cunning or even pure. He puts himself beyond the care of other humans and ends as what he would have been if he had never received any -- a dead child. Gryffindor character arcs, OTOH, flirt with deterioration. Wormtail, Percy, Dumbledore, Lupin, Sirius, Ron and Hermione, James, Ginny and of course Harry himself-- unlike the Slytherins they start out with excellent moral philosophy, but too often they take their adherence to it for granted. "Just because a wizard doesn't use Dark Magic," says Binns, "doesn't mean he *can't*." Yet the Gryffindors too often assume that their choices can't be wrong, and pay a price for it. James dies because he can't believe any of his friends could go so wrong. Hermione and Ron know intellectually that might does not make right, but emotionally they can't help believing it just a little. At any rate, Harry does not trust them or himself with the Elder Wand. (I'm a bit bewildered by the assertion that no karmic justice falls on Fred and George for Montague. Last I looked, Fred was dead and George was never going to be the same.) Harry's journey is indeed not a moral progress but a journey from folly to wisdom, to understanding the true nature of Gryffindor and Slytherin, and their hidden unity. You cannot, after all, use any means to achieve your ends unless you're willing to take risks. You cannot chivalrously defend the weak without the power to do it. James's gesture of drawing an imaginary sword is most telling. Daring, nerve and chivalry do *not* set Gryffindors apart -- that part of Gryffindor's founding myth is as false as Salazar's belief in pureblood superiority, and potentially just as damaging. Pippin From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 5 21:59:47 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 13:59:47 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176746 On 2007, Sep 05, , at 09:35, Steve wrote: > --- Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: >> >> Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I >> know it forces a person to act against his/her will, >> but there are some circumstances in which that might >> be the best thing for the person. ... Rather than >> calling it an Unforgiveable, I would call it a >> Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. >> >> Laura > > bboyminn: > > Here is the problem, many citizens set themselves > outside the law. Now, I don't mean that they are > outlaws, quite the contrary, the see themselves as > near perfect law-abiding citizens who also feel that > the law doesn't apply to them. > > An example, many many MANY years ago the local town > passed an anti-loitering ordinance. No one could > pause on the main street of town for more than one > minute (or whatever) without being in violation. > > I was explaining to the Mother of a friend of mine > that if she paused too long to browse a shop > window or paused to talk to a friend on the street, > she could be in violation of the law. "Oh no, they > would never do that to me. That law is for other > people." But this can happen with ANY law. As you point out above, it happened with a loitering law. That shouldn't impact an assessment of the severity of a crime. > How does that little story apply to the question at > hand? It is easy to see the Imperius as OK, when > you apply it to hypothetic scenarios or when it is > a third party controlling a fouth party. But ask > yourself this, do you want anyone controlling you > under any circumstances? That is any likely and > reasonable circumstance that could occur rather > than very unlikely hypothetical circumstances? I didn't say the Imperius was OK, I said it doesn't seem bad enough to be an Unforgiveable. An Unforgiveable implies that there would NEVER be an instance in which use of that spell would be acceptable in the eyes of moral citizens. And being willing to defend your use of it in court isn't at all the same as saying that the law doesn't apply to you. It is making the judgment that you can defend its use in court as more acceptable in moral society than not using the spell would have been. > It is easy to say, well if I'm standing on the train > tracks and a train is coming, I wouldn't mind someone > making me move to safety, but what are the odds that > you will be standing on the train tracks and not > realize it? And once you do realize it and an also > realize a train is coming, what are the odds you will > continue to stand their? Not that likely. Likelihood should also not determine the legality of a law. Given the laws of chance, even an unlikely situation is likely to happen if you wait long enough. > It is alway easy to rationalize these things when we > apply them to the abstract 'other' while at the same > time, like my friends mother, assume that it can > ONLY happen to the 'other'. The problem is, to > everyone else WE ARE THE 'OTHER'. I think the rule should apply to everyone. I understand the problem of only applying to the other side. But I still think Imperio is much less of an Unforgiveable than AK or Crucio. And, in fact, I think there are reasonable examples where its use is warranted, something I feel is much less likely with Crucio and almost impossible with AK. > As to the use of the Unforgivables by the good guys > in the story. Sometime circumstance really are so > extreme that equally extreme measures are needed. > What would you have Harry do when they entered Gringotts? I would have him use the spell as he did, reasoning that it was a better alternative than any of the others he had. > Would you have him fail in a task vital to the > preservation of liberty in the Wizard and Muggle > world? Would you have him say, well better to fail > and set the world under the boot heal of tyranny, than > to do something wrong? Actually, you are arguing my point here. There are circumstances under which Imperio is the best choice. And, in my eyes at least, it is NOT unforgiveable, but is, rather, necessary. > There seem to be a lot of people who are moral > absolutists or perhaps moral socialists, that see > every action as morally neutral. Why is it OK for the > good guys but not for the bad guys? Well, if you can't > see that the bad guys are indeed the bad guys then I > think you need to have your (general) compass adjusted. > > I don't really think you can take the evil action of > an evil person out of their moral context just so it > can be presented as 'morally neutral'. Context is > everything. In the right context, nearly anything > can be justified. In the context of Harry and other > 'white hats' using Unforgivables, I think they can > be forgiven. They are still wrong, but they are > understandable and forgivable. But this is just the point you were making above, only the other way around. You seem to think Harry and the good guys should be above the law. THEY can use the Unforgiveables and be forgiven. What I am saying is that Imperio shouldn't be an Unforgiveable. It should be a Be-Prepared-to-Defend-Its-Use-in-Court-able. If you forgive the good guys for using an Unforgiveable, then it isn't an Unforgiveable - and your laws aren't fair. IMO. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Sep 6 00:34:03 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:34:03 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Next for Harry? Message-ID: <20070906103403.CTQ81419@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176747 Bart: Are you REALLY sure you want a book about those years? Sharon: Judging by the amount of fan fiction out there, there are lots of things that could happen! For example: Hermione could run off with Draco, a new Dark Lord could emerge by feeding on the fetus and heart of a pregnant woman (no kidding!), Hermione goes to graduate school in Egypt, Snape has a crush on Hermione.....etc.....LOL. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From graynavarre at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 00:04:38 2007 From: graynavarre at yahoo.com (Barbara Key) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:04:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? In-Reply-To: <8ee758b40709050548t42463e81g11858e445b3442bc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <933529.39798.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176748 > > John Paul Smith wrote: > > My overall thought after reading Deathly Hallows is as follows. > > With all of the HP series, Rowling uses timeless archetypes to > > fill out her stories. If you take the obviousness of Star Wars > > you can see this quite clearly. Take the SAT Route: Harry Potter > > Series is to Star wars as: > > Harry = Luke Skywalker (the young hero) > > Dumbledore = Ben Kenobi (learned master) > > Hagrid = Chewbacca (loyal retainer) > > And so on and so forth, etc, etc. However, and what I have > > been racking my brain about is "Where does Snape fit in this > > equation?" The only character that I can think that comes close to Snape would be Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Once he makes his turn from total evil to semi good, he does the right things, he never fits in, he is sarcastic, he loves completey (but the love may or may not be returned), he is courageous, and he dies saving the world. He also inspires either love or hatred from the fans. Also, like Snape, Spike was a fanastic creation that got away from its creator. JKR created Snape but doesn't want us to like him and JW created Spike and did everything in his power to make the fans hate. Barbara From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Sep 6 01:54:43 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:54:43 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: <001b01c7eff0$ea3cef80$b1c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> References: <001b01c7eff0$ea3cef80$b1c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: <46DF5DE3.9070901@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176749 Cathy Drolet wrote: > Random832: >>> Why not just NOT write a book that depends on mathematical formulas, > birthdates, etc.? I'm a bit confused with your assertion that the HP > series _does_ to any significant extent depend on such things.<< > > I'm not sure what you're saying but I'll try to explain myself. > She made the series depend on dates when she dated CoS. No. That was the action that led to there being a basis for people to pick at dates. But, the series doesn't _depend_ on dates, _BECAUSE_ it would have worked perfectly well without it. It's a footnote. It's not the least bit important to the plot. Just because it's there doesn't mean that the books _DEPEND_ on it and would fall apart without it. > I believe JKR started the whole dating-of-the-books/I'm so bad at math saga when she wrote, in CoS: "Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," said Nearly Headless Nick. (Can Ed, pg 99) followed by: "and, in pride of place, an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words, 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st October, 1492'." Prior to that, no one could really say that the events of PS took place in this year or that year. > But because of that one date, Potterites everywhere knew that October, in Cos, was meant to be 1992. And, that a contemporary date is mentioned does not mean that the series "depends" on having a coherent timeline for all past events, some more than a century ago. Not a single birthdate is mentioned (even Harry's is only implicit) EVER. Apart from the month and approximate time of month of Harry's, and arguably the timing of Hermione's relative to her year-mates, no-one's birthdate is the least bit important to the plot. Hell, the relative ages of anyone older than Harry never has any significance, yet everyone keeps picking and picking at the Bill/Charlie age thing, Molly not remembering Hagrid, etc - But we don't get any important plot revelations based on the number of years that passed between Charlie's birth and Percy's, or a bit of information that Molly remembers from before Hagrid was hired, or anything like that. It's simply NOT RELEVANT. > It was JKR's decision to include a date that would start the whole ball rolling (pardon the pun). I'm not seeing how you can jump from "a date was mentioned" to "the series depends on dates". And no-one's birthdate _is_ mentioned, except in so far as Harry's (alone) is mentioned without the year and we can deduce the year. The most egregious problem that _actually could affect the plot_ if given the chance, is the timings of the full moons. But even then, an author is free to simply not keep track, and choose it (along with the position of mars) for dramatic effect rather than historical accuracy, and it doesn't make the story any weaker. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 6 01:54:13 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 21:54:13 -0400 Subject: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DF5DC5.5060306@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176750 Alla: > You mean every time poor author mentions **one** date in the series, > that means the book is dependent on dates? Bart: Pretty much so. And she has nobody to blame but herself. She's the one who decided to be super clever, and make tiny points major clues. She's the one who even put patterns in the book where the chapter numbers were significant. She's the one who encouraged readers to examine the books with magnifying glasses, to say how carefully she worded things. So, yes, when she screws up and contradicts herself, she has herself to blame when the readers are angry. Bart From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 02:07:51 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:07:51 -0000 Subject: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: <46DF5DC5.5060306@sprynet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176751 > Alla: > > You mean every time poor author mentions **one** date in the series, > > that means the book is dependent on dates? > > Bart: > Pretty much so. And she has nobody to blame but herself. > > She's the one who decided to be super clever, and make tiny points major > clues. She's the one who even put patterns in the book where the chapter > numbers were significant. She's the one who encouraged readers to > examine the books with magnifying glasses, to say how carefully she > worded things. So, yes, when she screws up and contradicts herself, she > has herself to blame when the readers are angry. Alla: What in the plot of the books depends on dates? What exactly depends on Nick's birthday? What major or minor plot revelations depend on it? You want to pick up dates and birthday inconsistencies, well, that's your right. I myself will never ever understand how that make the story flows worse. That's me. People keep talking about Dumbledore and Antie Muriel and I keep scratching my head - what in the story does not feel right because of it? Does it take away from Dumbledore horrible past? It just does not matter for me in the slightest. I do not care. I believe that demanding from the author who honestly confessed that she is bad at maths to maintain every birthday in consistency with every other is demand a bit much. People want to held JKR to this standard - as I said, it is their right, but as person bad with maths as well, I would never understand why. As I said, I read plenty stories with messed up timelines. I still consider them excellent stories. My opinion of course. Random: And, that a contemporary date is mentioned does not mean that the series "depends" on having a coherent timeline for all past events, some more than a century ago. Not a single birthdate is mentioned (even Harry's is only implicit) EVER. Apart from the month and approximate time of month of Harry's, and arguably the timing of Hermione's relative to her year-mates, no-one's birthdate is the least bit important to the plot. Hell, the relative ages of anyone older than Harry never has any significance, yet everyone keeps picking and picking at the Bill/Charlie age thing, Molly not remembering Hagrid, etc - But we don't get any important plot revelations based on the number of years that passed between Charlie's birth and Percy's, or a bit of information that Molly remembers from before Hagrid was hired, or anything like that. It's simply NOT RELEVANT. Alla: Oh I so agree with every word. From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Sep 6 02:22:35 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2007 22:22:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46DF646B.4080403@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176752 > Random: > ...It's simply NOT RELEVANT. > > > Alla: > > Oh I so agree with every word. Random832: On reflection, I think "not relevant" is part of the problem. For the people who constructed elaborate theories based on dates, numbers, or whatever, having the clues they based them on turn out to be so completely worthless has got to be the ultimate disappointment. I mean, [if it had been me, at least] - that's worse than being _wrong_ - at least if you're wrong there's something there, your theory was up against others and lost, and you get to find out what it turned out to be instead. I was disappointed by a lot - the "Goblin property rights" bit chief among them - but I never bought into the "numbers are important" thing - Even when I've talked about years, it's just a convenient number to hang a "relative to when the books take place" on. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 02:38:31 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:38:31 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176753 Laura Lynn Walsh: > A bus is coming toward you. You don't see it, as you are > busy looking at something else. I am too far away to push > you out of its way. I can Imperio you to move. Is that > Unforgiveable? Lisa: Imperio me and what? Make me decide to jump out of the way? Still better to hit me with a spell that'll move me, rather than overtake my will, don't you think? Lisa From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 6 02:43:06 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 02:43:06 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176754 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > According to chapter seventeen of The Deathly Hallows (Bathilda's > Secret), we know that James & Lilly Potter died on the 31st October > 1981. > > Eleven years later Harry started attending Hogwarts. > > A quick calculation would therefore indicate that the Deathly Hallows > is set in the year 1999. Actually, Harry began attending Hogwarts *ten* years later - he was already a year and three months old at the time of his parent's death. DH takes place between 1997-1998. -CMC From va32h at comcast.net Thu Sep 6 03:11:17 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:11:17 -0000 Subject: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176755 > Random: It's simply NOT RELEVANT. > > > Alla: > > Oh I so agree with every word. va32h: Well I agree and disagree. Actual dates are irrelevant - I don't know why JKR bothered with them on the Potters' gravestones either. Nick's deathday cake in CoS was written before the series became insanely popular, I don't fault JKR for not realizing how obsessive and nitpicky her readers would become. But in a larger sense - we have to be able to trust the author. To feel that what she's telling us is important. When the author makes a series of factual mistakes, it undermines that trust. It makes me wonder - is this little factoid or that supposed to be meaningful, or is it just another oversight? JKR has had little hiccups in the past, but DH just had too many boo- boos in one place for me. I began to feel that the "rules" of the JKR universe had become "whatever keeps the plot moving goes." va32h From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 03:33:49 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:33:49 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176756 > In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176702 > > Mike: > > > I did answer the question about Hermione's jinxed DA roster. > > zeldaricdeau: > > Sorry if you've answered it elsewhere. I've tried to keep up with > all the posts but I only get to the list twice a week on average > and well ... there's a lot to keep up with :). Mike: Oh, I didn't mean to imply anything against you. I was just covering my butt saying I had thought about Hermione's DA hex/jinx. > zeldaricdeau: > I'd like to know what's driving that gut level reaction. It's > like JKR wants us to both be absolutely sure of what's good and > what's bad (so we have these instinctual reactions to the actions > of certain characters) and at the same time wants to tease us with > moral ambiguity and ethics questions (when is it ok for a person > to use an Unforgivable). Mike: Carol pointed out the many places and spells in canon that are presented as unambiguously Dark. I bow to her list. So let me tackle the moral ambiguity. People seem concerned that Harry "got away with" using a Crucio, that there were no signs of remorse from Harry. Or that Snape's "No unforgivables from you, Potter", wasn't the stricture that we thought it was. And that this means that JKR was saying it's OK for the good guys to use Dark Magic. That's not the meaning I got at all. When Harry is quoting a DE, "I see what Bellatrix meant,... you need to really mean it.", that doesn't make me think that this curse is no longer suppose to be Dark. It meant that Harry used a Dark Curse. Let's not forget that wasn't the first time Harry used or attempted a Crucio. Was that OK because it was Harry? Why should I think that? Or because it was successful, or because we got no overt sense of remorse from Harry? I see nothing in canon that tells me I should either change my understanding of Crucio's Darkness from the prior three books, nor that it was OK for Harry to use it. I haven't all of a sudden decided that Harry was infallable. I even think Draco's Crucios under Voldemort's eye was more forgivable than Harry's disproportionate response. Is the lack of remorse at a time when showing remorse would have been ridiculous the defining evidence that Harry's Crucio was no big deal? Not to me. Harry used a Dark Curse and he was wrong. I think we are suppose to forgive him because of the heat of the moment, but not excuse him. > zeldaricdeau: > That's where my question is I think: HOW do you know it when you > see it? What cues is the book giving people like you and me that > makes us "know it when we see it?" Is it just that we're importing > our own moral codes or has the book set us up to know when and how > to respond? Are we just being manipulated into seeing right and > wrong or are we being given a coherent structure of principles by > which we could, theoretically puzzle out what is Dark and what is > Not Dark. Mike: I hope we are being manipulated, isn't that what the author should be trying to do? And yes, I think we have to bring some of our own moral code into our understanding if we are to have any hope of understanding the premises JKR is trying to convey. I do see where the ambiguity problem comes in and at the same time think that if one doesn't change their position on Dark and not so dark based on who casts the spell, things aren't as confusing as they seem. If you allow that the "good guys" do use bad guy spells from time to time, that helps to see the truly Dark. I don't shift my opinion on what's Dark, I accept that the "good guys" sometimes use them, while knowing that they are wrong to do so. Hermione's DA hex has an element of dark to it, justified or not. Is it full on Dark, I don't read it that way, not when we have so many more egregious examples. Let's also remember that we follow Harry almost exclusively, so we are bound to have more things to point out as dark or Dark from the Trio. And what was Lucius' advice to Draco in CoS? Don't be seen as antagonistic to Harry, keep out of the way and let whomever is openning the CoS get on with it. But when Draco finally gets a mission we see him using Imperio to plant a deadly cursed object and poison some mead. And I doubt the Crucio he attempted in the bathroom was his first. But we didn't see any of it because it was off screen until HBP. > zeldaricdeau: > How does Harry casting a Dark Spell mean that what is Dark is not > determined by who casts it? Mike: Have I explained this yet? I hope so, but if not: Start with the premise that **only Dark Wizards cast Dark spells.** Harry casts Crucio. Either Crucio is not Dark, or Harry is a Dark Wizard. Since I believe neither of the above two, then the premise is false. I.e. **Not** only Dark Wizards cast Dark Spells. With corollaries, Good Guys *do* cast Dark Spells and Dark Spells are not dependent upon who casts them. Finally, let me add that I think everyone in the Potterverse has a little darkness in them. It's a matter of degrees, as zgirnius pointed out in her post earlier in this thread. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/176708 > lizzyben: > > OK... so there's a distinction between "dark magic" & "Dark Magic" > that's never been outlined in the books at all? What is the > distinction? Is it simply that it's (lower-case) dark magic when our > side does it and (upper-case) Dark Magic when people we don't like > do it? Mike: In the same post you are quoting from, I had said that Dark was irrespective of the spell caster, imo. I also said twice before on this thread, and in my message above I add for the third time, that Harry uses Dark Magic. I suppose at this point it's up to you to accept that the message was clear or continue to believe the "our side" vs "their side" message. As I've proposed before, the lack of a positive does not prove the negative. > lizzyben: > > But if it's such an instinctive gut reaction as "I know it when I > see it," w/no further definition, how can you be sure that your > opinion isn't being influenced by who is casting the spell (i.e. a > beloved character or hated character), or what we are told & not > shown (Slytherins use dark magic, Gryffindors don't). Mike: But I do think it is well enough defined for me to "know it". And I trust my ability to understand that definition and not be ruled by my emotions when making this judgement call. YMMV > lizzyben: > > What I guess I'm saying is that the connotations & bias are so deep > that it's really impossible to look at it objectively - we are > totally steeped in the (biased) Gryffindor point of view, even > though, upon closer examination, that POV really doesn't make any > sense at all. Mike: I suppose if you believe the Gryffindors are bad and the Slytherins are good, then you would also believe you are receiving a "biased" POV in the worse sense of the word. In this case, I would say we truly are not reading the same books. JKR wrote from the Gryff POV because she also designated the Gryffs as the "Good Guys". > lizzyben: > I think it's very possible to create a coherent alternate POV in > which *Gryffindor* House is really the House of Dark Magic, & our > protagonists are potentially dangerous Dark Wizards. Mike: Sure, go ahead and write an alternate story too. As long as it's fair game to remove all context from canon, we might as well argue that Tom Riddle perceived a Dark Wizard was born to two of your former House B students and attempted to save the world from his pre- ordained reign of terror. Nice idea, why don't you write it? In the meantime, I'll continue to debate the books JKR wrote. > lizzyben > Which is the real house of "Dark Magic" here? House A or House B? > Mike: Oh, I don't know. So the Death Eaters were really the good guys, eh? That Tom Riddle was so loveable, wasn't he? Damn that Harry for mucking up the works. From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 6 03:44:10 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:44:10 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176757 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > 1999 plus 19 would make that year 2018, this would indicate that > James was born last year; and Albus this year. > > Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime during > these nineteen years? > > I for one would like to know what happened to him after defeating the > Dark Lord. > > salo.krano > Allie: I immediately thought JKR was making a little nod to Stephen King with her "19 years later," since it seemed such an odd, uneven number. (Why not 20 years later? Or 15?) His Dark Tower series is full of references to 19 and he wrote a forward called, "On Being Nineteen." I believe it's well-known that he is a fan of hers, I don't know if she is a fan of his though. Was I the only one? From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu Sep 6 03:45:16 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:45:16 -0000 Subject: FILK: Things We Did Today Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176758 Things We Did Today To the tune of The Things We Said Today by the Beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwokRK8P6D4 THE SCENE: Gryffindor Commons ? THE TRIO debrief after the tumult of DH's final chapters. RON: Opening the Chamber With a strangled hiss. HERMIONE: Embracing my lover With a fervent kiss. HARRY: Grabbing the tiara With the Fiendfyre holding sway TRIO: We'll always remember Things we did today. HERMIONE: Percy a repenter, Molly waging war RON: Giants and dementors, Bodies on the floor HARRY: One remaining Horcrux Neville using the sword to slay TRIO: We'll always remember Things we saw today. RON: Voldy said, "The elder wand Won't be mine until I Snapey strike." HERMIONE: Turns out that Vold was conned Snape was Dumble's man, he was in love HARRY: .with Lily Evans (She's my mum, you know) Since the age 11. So a silver doe Became his Patronus That he sent us to show the way TRIO: We'll always remember Things we heard today. Voldy thought, "The elder wand Now is mine because I Snapey struck." But in the Great Beyond Vold is doomed to cry. But there is grief Enough on our side We must bid adieu Fred and Tonks and Lupin Colin Creevey, too If we would have freedom There's a price that we have to pay We'll always remember Those we lost today. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated 09/05/07 with 38 new filks) From eworld_joy at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 03:27:55 2007 From: eworld_joy at yahoo.com (eworld_joy) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:27:55 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176759 > Laura Lynn Walsh: > Why is Imperio considered an Unforgiveable? Yes, I know it forces a > person to act against his/her will, but there are some circumstances > in which that might be the best thing for the person. > Imperio is Unforgiveable curse however, depends on how you use it. Yes it's bad, it hurts because you're taking the freewill of a person, and yet it's good if it'll save your butt from doing something stupid. A gun is neither good or bad but it will depend on what matter you draw it. Only that you'll need to prepare for the consequence and rather live and face it. J. From lilgator1978 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 03:50:33 2007 From: lilgator1978 at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 03:50:33 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176760 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > I can remember when the first two movies came out; people wondered > if a love interest would develop between Hermione & Harry. > > Was it JK's plan that Harry would fall in love with Ginny or is > this a story line she developed along the way? I don't remember thinking that any of the three main characters would ultimately fall in love with each other as of book one...but it has been years since I read it. Now that I have read the last and the series is complete I plan on going back to the start and rereading them all and I am sure new things will stand out to me knowing what I know now. I actually look forward to discovering just how very smart JK was in the writing of her series. But I never thought Harry & Hermione would end up together, though it was pretty obvious as of book 2 or 3 that Ron and Hermione would end up together, and what a great couple! I am sure they will spend their lives being lovingly frustrated with each other! Harry and Ginny...I didn't see that one from the start but I think it works out great. By marrying her he becomes an official part of the Weasley family, who have treated him like a son and brother from the beginning. I actually felt though, when reading DH, with all of Harry's thoughts about Ginny, that it all seemed suddenly very intense - his feelings for Ginny - and I don't remember feeling that intensity in book 6. But again, I like the coupling because even though I am sure he loved her just for her, I think it adds that she's the sister of his best friend and the daughter of the two people who are the closest thing he's known to real parents. For me, who was very happy with Harry's happy ending, I thought it was well deserved, it is now very easy to envision the orginal trio of heroes being friends, and family, for the rest of their lives. Erin http://www.ladyabbies.com From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 6 04:23:59 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 20:23:59 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F9C4F7-E767-42FA-8FA8-158F8B4550AC@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176761 On 2007, Sep 05, , at 18:38, Lisa wrote: > Laura Lynn Walsh: >> A bus is coming toward you. You don't see it, as you are >> busy looking at something else. I am too far away to push >> you out of its way. I can Imperio you to move. Is that >> Unforgiveable? > > Lisa: > > Imperio me and what? Make me decide to jump out of the way? Still > better to hit me with a spell that'll move me, rather than overtake my > will, don't you think? > > Lisa Sure, but I don't think we know one that does that. A blasting spell could do more harm than a simple Imperio, move to the left. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 04:43:20 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 04:43:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176762 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "melhersheybar" wrote: > Another problem with math and DD's age that is much bigger, IMO, is > the fact that he dueled with Grindelwald in 1945 when, according to > jkrowling.com, he was 64 years old. > Yet, when talking to Harry about Grindelwald, he mentions watching > GW become more and more powerful for something like five years, > before he finally realized he would have to fight him. > I always read this to mean that he and DD dueled within 5-10 years > of their parting Hi, Mel! Somehow I never thought that LV and GG dueled only five years after they parted ways. They were both only seventeen when they met, and it seems unlikely that by age twenty-two GG already had so much power, and built an army, and made bad things happen in Europe :-). Besides, first he spent some time looking for the Elder wand, I suppose. DD didn't say anything to Harry about "five years", it's from Rita's book: "... Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald" (p.359). I take it that they were five years after GG made his move against continental wizarding society, not five years after Ariana's death. I think there are a few hints in the book that many years passed between GG's flight from Godric's Hollow and the duel. "Barely two months into their great new friendship, Dumbledore and Grindelwald parted, never to see each other again until they met for their legendary duel" (358). "... Albus never saw him again, not until forced to do so by the pleas of the Wizarding world. Neither Dumbledore nor Grindelwald ever seems to have referred to this brief boyhood friendship in later life" (359). Sorry to quote Rita as a reliable source :-), but I believe that she at least got those details right! As for DD, he only says to Harry ("King's Cross") that "years passed" and also that he "delayed" meeting GG, but he also says that he was offerd the post of Minister several times in the years before he dueled GG. I don't think they started offering the post to DD when he was seventeen, or even twenty-two, even if he was a genius and all that. That's why I believe that "five years" were the years the wizarding society spent "pleading" with DD, according to Rita, and not the years that passed between Ariana's death and the duel. zanooda, who thinks that this is not one of JKR's mistakes :-) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 05:18:50 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 05:18:50 -0000 Subject: Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176763 > Allie: > > I immediately thought JKR was making a little nod to Stephen King with > her "19 years later," since it seemed such an odd, uneven number. > (Why not 20 years later? Or 15?) zgirnius: For most of DH, Harry is 18. 19 years later, on Sept. 1, the day we are shown, he is 37. This is the age Snape, Lupin, and Peter were, and Lily, James, and Sirius would have been, had they all been alive in DH. My thought for why it was 19. From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 07:31:28 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:31:28 -0000 Subject: In love with Ginny or Hermione? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0709012311gb8fae14h47cf205f2cf1e36@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176764 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lynda Cordova" wrote: > > I knew from my first reading of the first book that Harry and Ginny would > fall in love. As well as Ron and Hermione. Its the way she wrote the > characters from the beginning that clued me in. > > Lynda > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Jenni from Alabama responds: So did I! As soon as Harry watched Ginny run after the train waving goodbye to the twins I suspected it. When Harry fights so hard to save Ginny in the Chamber of Secrets, I knew for sure! Harry looks so much like James. Ginny has red hair like Lily. It was fate! The hints were there, though they were subtle. IMO there was nothing subtle about Ron and Hermione! They bickered like an old married couple from the start! Jenni From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 6 10:36:46 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 10:36:46 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on Severus: how does he fit in? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176765 > JP: > That's a very valid point Janette, and seeing as how very British the novels are, its quite possibly that she (J.K.) pulled from older british novels. I wouldn't discount the affect that globalization has had on the writing process, with so much accessibility to world literature in the past 20 years, it's also just as possible that the make-up of Snape be Japanese as well as British. But I think it's far more possible to be Dickension here rather than Noh :P Potioncat: A while back---not sure if predated HBP or came out afterwards---there was a thread about hero-types as they applied to Harry and to Snape. The thread looked at literature throughout the ages. It would be a good launching point for a new discussion if anyone could find it. There's also been discussion about the genres the HP books borrow from and how the characters fit into the roles of different genres. From adrianus.r.suheryadi at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 10:12:58 2007 From: adrianus.r.suheryadi at gmail.com (aRi) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 17:12:58 +0700 Subject: Preferred Future Book Contents (Was Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7ba532ec0709060312ud23fc4fg3c93c58f2730626e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176766 > salo.krano wrote: > Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime > during these nineteen years? Personally, I would rather expect a book or books about the Marauders' adventures in Hogwarts :) -- aRi http://oktoruf.blogspot.com/ From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 11:48:54 2007 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:48:54 -0000 Subject: Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176767 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > Allie: > > > > I immediately thought JKR was making a little nod to Stephen King > with > > her "19 years later," since it seemed such an odd, uneven number. > > (Why not 20 years later? Or 15?) > > zgirnius: > For most of DH, Harry is 18. 19 years later, on Sept. 1, the day we are > shown, he is 37. This is the age Snape, Lupin, and Peter were, and > Lily, James, and Sirius would have been, had they all been alive in DH. > > My thought for why it was 19. Jenni from Alabama responds: When did Harry have another birthday after leaving the Burrow and 'hiding out' with Ron and Hermione? When did he turn eighteen? Could you point that out in the book? I'm really curious! I've read DH and haven't seen it! Jenni From jnferr at gmail.com Thu Sep 6 11:44:01 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:44:01 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Preferred Future Book Contents (Was Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: <7ba532ec0709060312ud23fc4fg3c93c58f2730626e@mail.gmail.com> References: <7ba532ec0709060312ud23fc4fg3c93c58f2730626e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8ee758b40709060444p31e21357k694c96ed1f55beb4@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176768 On 9/6/07, aRi wrote: > > > salo.krano wrote: > > > Is it possible that JK might write an eighth book set sometime > > during these nineteen years? > > > Personally, I would rather expect a book or books about the > Marauders' adventures in Hogwarts :) montims: now, the marauders per se don't interest me - I would love to see a book telling the story of James and Lily from when they each received their Hogwarts letters, through to the fateful day... (that would incorporate the marauders as a sidestory...) I'd queue up all day and night for that one! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 12:03:00 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:03:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176769 > Carol responds: > > We need to look at canon (not that it's consistent, but it's the place > to start). When and by whom and in what context are the terms "Dark > arts," "Dark wizard," and "Dark magic" used? (I agree that there's no > canonical distinction between "dark" and "Dark"; only JKR's > off-the-cuff attempt to distinguish between jinxes, hexes, and curses, > which doesn't fit canon at all since it puts, say, the Conjunctivitis > Curse or the Leg-Locker Curse, aka Locomotor Mortis). lizzyben: OK, canon. I agree that there is absolutely no distinction between dark magic, Dark Magic, or DARK MAGIC in canon. It also seems like there isn't a middle ground of semi-dark, gray magic. There's just two categories: "dark magic" & DADA. Carol: > Where to start? How about Knockturn Alley or curses and spells used > *only* by known Dark wizards and particularly Voldemort. Horcruxes and > the unnatural resurrection magic performed by Wormtail and possession, > used only by Voldemort to control his victims and in Quirrell's case, > use up his life force, is surely also Dark magic. lizzyben: I agree that Horcruxes & Inferi are undoubtably dark - the problem is, we never see anyone except Voldemort using this type of magic. What does your typical "Dark Wizard" (Blacks, Malfoys) do? Carol: > Or how about what's taught in the DADA classes (other than > Umbridge's)? The focus in the first through third years, especially in > Lupin's class, seems to be on Dark creatures (as distinct from > "magical creatures" like Unicorns and Knarls and Hippogriffs). Dark > creatures are easy enough to identify and always labeled as such, and > we can definitely see a range of "darkness" or at least of danger in > them, from the mischievous Cornish Pixies released by Lockhart to > Dementors, the foulest of Dark creatures, soulless and evil despite a > humanlike appearance when they're cloaked. (I suppose we could include > Blast-Ended Skrewts as Dark, but since they were bred by Hagrid and > are otherwise nonexistent, we can safely leave them off the list.) > Werewolves are Dark creatures once a month; Dementors and Inferi are > always Dark--irredeemabe and unreformable and permanently perilous. > (Vampires, oddly, seem to be essentially harmless and comic. Strangely.) lizzyben: Yes, there are Dark Creatures, but most of these seem to be entirely natural - that is, they are magical creatures that exist independent of wizards. "Dark Magic" doesn't create more vampires, or werewolves, etc., the monsters themselves do. Dementors also seem independent. Only Inferi seem to be directly created & controlled by a wizard. So these monsters seem to be labeled "dark creatures" because they are bad or evil, not because there's any connection to "dark magic" as such. Carol: > The Dark Arts, covered by Fake!Moody in GoF and Snape in HBP, are > another matter. Fake!Moody focuses on curses, even using the Imperius > Curse on students. (I think it was an excuse to force them to do his > bidding, but, oh, well.) He also hexes them as a "test" to see whether > they can protect themselves (so he says). We're not told that he > actually teaches them any defensive spells; if he did, Hermione > wouldn't have had to look up Protego and Impedimenta (another > "curse"!) in the library. lizzyben: The DADA classes are, IMO, our best clue to what dark magic actually is. To learn a "defense against dark arts" spell, the spell has to be defending against dark magic. And in these classes, unforgiveable curses, hexes & jinxes are all seen as dark magic. In the Dueling Club of COS, Lockhart is supposed to be showing the students a "DADA" defense spell, while Snape attacks w/a presumed Dark spell. What spell does Snape attack with? Expelliarmus, which later becomes Harry's signature spell. I think, in this series, Dark Magic is simply a form of combat magic. It's a weapon that can be used by all sides. As another poster has said, it is a term for violent spells in general. Now, there's still differences in how deadly each jinx or curse is, w/the most deadly curses are banned completely. But those are just differences of degree - like the difference between a BB gun (Jelly-Legs Jinx) & a bazooka (AK). "Dark Magic" is simply offensive battle spells - all jinxes, curses, etc. This is also consistent w/what JKR herself says on her website. Carol: > Anyway, I'm working from memory here, but I'm suggesting places to > look. DADA is "Defense Against the Dark Arts," so what, exactly, are > the students being taught to defend themselves against? What is sold > in Knockturn Alley that isn't sold in Diagon Alley? What magic is > performed by known Dark wizards that isn't performed by, erm, non-Dark > ones? lizzyben: Knockturn Alley seems to have various "dark items", though this isn't defined most of the time. It's probably the same kind of stuff they found in the Black House. What I can't understand is what a "Dark Wizard" actually *does* all day. For example, Orion Black, Sirius' father is a "dark wizard". So... what? Does he go around all day using jinxes & curses against people? I don't think so. What makes a dark wizard dark? I don't think we ever get a real explanation. Carol: > Is the Unbreakable Vow, which involves the death of the oath breaker, > Dark? (I'd say it is.) What about curses that have no countercurse or > poisons with no antidote? Are poisons in general, at least, magical > poisons, Dark magic? (That horrible potion protecting the locket > Horcrux (and the fake one) surely is. If, say, Dumbledore had created > that potion, surely it would still be Dark magic. It isn't Dark simply > because Voldemort created it. lizzyben: I'm liking a general definition that dark magic is magic that involves causing violence or pain to others. So, poisons would be dark magic. And the twins' ton-tongue toffees might be as well. Carol: > The Unforgiveable Curses cause excruciating pain or instant death > (with no countercurse) or an invasion of the mind and robbing of the > will which for lack of a better term we can call mind rape. > Apparently, good wizards can use them without becoming Dark > themselves, but nevertheless, these curses do seem to be Dark magic. > But, apparently, some magic is *so* Dark (Horcruxes, the creation of > Inferi, possession) that only a Dark wizard would use it. lizzyben: It seems like the real division is between everyone else & Voldemort. Everyone else can (& does) use jinxes, dark items, even unforgiveable curses w/o being called a "dark wizard." The super-dark magic of Inferi & Horcruxes are something only Voldemort could or would do. Carol: > Are we any closer to a definition or to something resembling > consistency in JKR's use of the term? Can we please look at canon? > > Carol, thinking that perhaps JKR's ideas changed as she wrote and > spells that she originally labeled "curses" became "jinxes" (as for > "counterjinxes," what the heck are they?) lizzyben: It seems like you've done an exhaustive canon comparison in your previous posts w/o really coming up w/a totally consistent characterization. (message 160791). Many of the "curses" are much less dangerous than jinxes, though jinxes are supposed to be less serious. Curses are supposed to be "reserved for the darkest magic", yet some curses seem relatively minor. So IMO it really seems like we might just have to accept that JKR hasn't been coherent in how she's presented this form of magic. What IS consistent, IMO, is that jinxes, hexes, & curses have always been presented as dark magic (both on her website & in canon). Which fits in nicely w/a general scheme of "dark magic" as violent, offensive or combative spells. And this means that the good guys use dark magic often throughout the series. lizzyben From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 12:26:04 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:26:04 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: <49F9C4F7-E767-42FA-8FA8-158F8B4550AC@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176770 > > Laura Lynn Walsh: > Sure, but I don't think we know one that does that. A blasting spell > could do more harm than a simple Imperio, move to the left. Lisa: I do! Wingardium Leviosa will pick me right up and above the bus until it passes. Lisa From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 12:54:12 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:54:12 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176771 > lizzyben: > What spell > does Snape attack with? Expelliarmus, which later becomes Harry's > signature spell. I think, in this series, Dark Magic is simply a form > of combat magic. zgirnius: Expelliarmus is not Dark Magic, it is purely defensive and does no physical harm. Its naming reflects this - it is the 'Disarming Charm'. Protego is another spell of this sort, and is also a Charm, the 'Shield Charm'. So when Harry decides to use Expelliarmus against Stan and Voldemort in DH, he is refraining from using Dark Magic. It is taught in DADA class as a 'defense against' Dark Arts. It seems that Snape knows a lot about it (DADA as distinct from Dark Arts), because he winds up duelling people who are (unwittingly) on his side a couple of times, and uses defensive magic to protect himself without harming his opponents. I would venture a guess that counterspells to Dark Magic of various sorts are also not Dark (Finite Incantatem, Liberacorpus, Snape's spell to heal the damage of Sectumsempra, etc.). Because, again, they do not cause harm to the opponent/caster of the Dark Magic, just cancel, stop, prevent, or remedy the effects of that Dark Magic. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 6 12:59:24 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:59:24 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176772 > lizzyben: snip What IS consistent, IMO, is that jinxes, > hexes, & curses have always been presented as dark magic (both on her > website & in canon). Which fits in nicely w/a general scheme of "dark > magic" as violent, offensive or combative spells. And this means that > the good guys use dark magic often throughout the series. Potioncat: I agree. As muddled as Dark Magic was before DH, it's much worse now. There's at least one quote from JKR that says she had Harry perform the Cruciatus to show that he could do so and later chose not to, rather than that he could not perform the magic at all. To me this is a lot like drug use in RL. Most of us would agree that certain street drugs are wrong and dangerous (crack, cocaine) we might start to disagree about Pot, tobacco, coffee. We would agree that prescription narcotics have an important role to play in healing, yet the mis-use of those medications is either immoral or an illness in itself. We probably don't all agree there. Potioncat(You should have heard the discussion between my teens and me over whether House or the Narcotics Cop should be considered the hero of the story on that TV show.) From va32h at comcast.net Thu Sep 6 13:23:36 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 13:23:36 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176773 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > > > > Laura Lynn Walsh: > > > Sure, but I don't think we know one that does that. A blasting spell > > could do more harm than a simple Imperio, move to the left. > > Lisa: > > I do! Wingardium Leviosa will pick me right up and above the bus until > it passes. > > Lisa Or Impedimenta, to stop the bus. Or that thing DD does to slow Harry down when he's falling off his broom in PoA. Or Sonorus, to make your voice so loud that I can hear you in time to jump out of the way myself. It's always easier to just force people to do what you want - that doesn't make it the best choice. va32h From dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 6 14:18:55 2007 From: dumbledad at yahoo.co.uk (Tim Regan) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:18:55 +0100 Subject: Snape killed Crouch Snr Message-ID: <003901c7f090$dcee4c70$96cae550$@com> No: HPFGUIDX 176774 Hi All, I know he didn't really, but a friend at work is rereading the books and just pointed out this teasingly lovely juxtaposition: 1) In DH Chapter 30 "The Sacking of Severus Snape" Snape is forced out of Hogwarts by McGonagall, Flitwick, and Sprout thus: >>> With a tingle of horror, Harry saw in the distance a huge bat-like shape flying through the darkness towards the perimeter wall. <<< 2. Back in GoF Chapter 29 "The Dream" the trio are discussing the murder of Barty Crouch Snr: >>> "If Snape hadn't held me up," Harry said bitterly, "we might've got there in time. 'The headmaster is busy. Potter . . . what's this rubbish, Potter?' Why couldn't he have just got out of the way?" "Maybe he didn't want you to get there!" said Ron quickly. "Maybe - hang on - how fast d'you reckon he could've gotten down to the forest? D'you reckon he could've beaten you and Dumbledore there?" "Not unless he can turn himself into a bat or something," said Harry. <<< So he can! Cheers, Dumbledad. ___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 6 14:33:18 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 06:33:18 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5DA67769-E7CA-462D-A8AA-2F1775CCD723@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176775 On 2007, Sep 06, , at 05:23, va32h wrote: > Or Impedimenta, to stop the bus. Or that thing DD does to slow Harry > down when he's falling off his broom in PoA. > > Or Sonorus, to make your voice so loud that I can hear you in time to > jump out of the way myself. > > It's always easier to just force people to do what you want - that > doesn't make it the best choice. > > va32h OK. So, yes, perhaps there are effective choices - I just am not as quick at thinking of them as other people are. But the question still remains (perhaps only in my mind), is it really that horrible to do an Imperio? So horrible that it is an Unforgiveable? The person was not asked to do anything that would be damaging to him/herself or to others. It didn't involve a matter of conscience that the person would regret if s/he had consciously performed the act. The person was not rendered incapable of making other informed, conscious decisions. The effect was very short lived. It just doesn't seem that horrible to me. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 6 15:26:57 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 15:26:57 -0000 Subject: Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176776 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jdl3811220" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > > > > > Allie: > > > > > > I immediately thought JKR was making a little nod to Stephen King > > with > > > her "19 years later," since it seemed such an odd, uneven > number. > > > (Why not 20 years later? Or 15?) > > > > zgirnius: > > For most of DH, Harry is 18. 19 years later, on Sept. 1, the day we > are > > shown, he is 37. This is the age Snape, Lupin, and Peter were, and > > Lily, James, and Sirius would have been, had they all been alive in > DH. > > > > My thought for why it was 19. > > Jenni from Alabama responds: > > When did Harry have another birthday after leaving the Burrow > and 'hiding out' with Ron and Hermione? When did he turn eighteen? > Could you point that out in the book? I'm really curious! I've read > DH and haven't seen it! Geoff: He doesn't. This is either suspect Maths - again! - or not reading canon. We already know that Harry was 11 in July 1991 and that DH is set during the academic year 1997/98 when Harry should have been in the Second Year Sixth had he returned to Hogwarts. Canon states: 'Yaxley waited but Voldemort did not speak, so he went on. "Dawlish, the Auror, let slip that Potter will not be moved until the thirtieth, the night before the boy turns seventeen."' (DH "The Dark Lord Ascending" p,11 UK edition) This is in the summer holiday between the HBP year and the next Autumn term. We know that the Trio were at Godric's Hollow just before Christmas so the final confrontations were in 1998 before he reached 18. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 17:52:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:52:31 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176777 Eggplant wrote: > Then she [Marietta] was dead wrong and when you make an error of that colossal magnitude you can expect to pay a price. > > "Carol" wrote: > > > She would have seen herself as fighting for the wrong side, Eggplant responded: > It could be, of course she'd have to be a moral imbecile, but it could be. However to tell the truth I don't much care how she saw herself, I see her as a traitor. > > If people just kept their word that jinx was of no importance, if they don't keep their word, well, I don't believe it is common practice for gorilla resistance organizations to make life easy for potential traitors. > Carol: Erm, I think you mean "guerrilla organizations." And we're talking about a group of kids who were for the most part thwarting a teacher who refused to teach them practical defensive skills. Most of them did not know or believe that Voldemort was back. Only Harry and the Death Eaters actually saw him. (Cedric died before knowing what the thing in Wormtail's arms was.) The DA was not the French resistance. It was a bunch of kids who were trying to learn spells from Harry. Marietta mistakenly saw them as a threat to the Ministry. Given the state of affairs (the Daily Prophet under the control of the Ministry, the Ministry, including most of the Wizengamot, believing that Dumbledore was lying about the return of Voldemort, Voldemort keeping himself well hidden and concentrating on the Prophecy) her mistakes are quite understandable. Yes, she was snitching on her fellow students for breaking the rules, but she was not aware that those students (or at least HRH and Neville and the Twins) were genuinely attempting to prepare to fight Voldemort and his Death Eaters. IOW, Marietta was not a secret Voldemort supporter trying to aid his return to power. In any case, it isn't "common practice" to jinx parchments in RL, either, so perhaps RL comparisons don't apply here. I still say that Hermione was less than honest in presenting her reasons for having the students sign the parchment, especially considering that the jinx had no effect as a *deterrent,* only as a punishment. (Her actions have no bearing one way or another on the degree of Marietta's guilt. It's not a matter of one or the other being in the wrong. Both are in the wrong to varying degrees, IMO. Poor judgment in both cases. It would have been best all around if Marietta had refused to sign and walked away or never attended in the first place.) Eggplant: > And she was wrong, dead wrong. In your post you imply that she had one erroneous idea after another after another, but you seem to forget there are consequences when you are that wrong about so many things. And by the end of book 5 everybody knew Harry was right and Voldemort was back, but did she apologies for her treacherous behavior? Nope, not in book 5,6 or 7. If it had been me I'd be totally ashamed of myself and I certainly wouldn't be complaining about pimples, I'd think I deserved the disfigurement. Carol responds: Of course, there are consequences for being wrong and making mistakes but that's different from deliberately doing wrong. Marietta had a choice between betraying the DA and (in her view) betraying her mother and the Ministry. *We* know that she was mistaken, but *she* couldn't have known or she wouldn't have made the mistake. And, having had her memory modified by Kingsley so that she forgot everything relatd to the DA, including her own betrayal, how could she possibly be expected to apologize? BTW, it seems to me that Fudge, an adult who actually knew Dumbledore, made even greater mistakes (which he came to regret). What would your punishment for *him* be? I happen to like the humbled Fudge of "The Other Minister" and wonder what happened to him. Carol, noting that there's no need to put her name in quotation marks From salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 6 17:04:37 2007 From: salo.krano at yahoo.co.uk (salo.krano) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:04:37 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176778 Geoff: "I'm sorry to fault your Maths but Harry was born on 31st July 1980. He was 15 months old when his parents were killed" Sorry I stand corrected I forgot Harry was 15 months old; I was only a couple of months out. All I'm saying is, it's not impossible for JK to write another Harry Potter book. After whole when Sherlock Holmes was killed off by his creator, he was brought back once a campaign was started by the readers. Yes I know these are two different characters by different authors, but anything is possible. SK From jmestacio at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 16:52:07 2007 From: jmestacio at yahoo.com (-jme-) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 09:52:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <914434.26303.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176779 Hello Everyone! I just read DH and one of the questions that have been bugging me is about the Fidelius on Godric's Hollow. It was stated in the book that when the secret keeper dies, all those that know of the "secret" becomes the secret-keeper right? Like what had happened with Grimmauld Place. The trio did still use it, though at greater risk with the greater number of secret keepers. But it still is, for all intents and purposes, hidden and un-plottable. And so I am left with the question, what about Godric's Hollow? If Peter Pettigrew as the Secret-Keeper, how was it possible that Hermione and Harry was able to see the ruins of the cottage? For that matter, how were the "tourists" able to see the cottage and leave those messages? Pettigrew was still alive, so it stands to reason, the Potter Place at Godric's Hollow should still be unplottable right? jme, wondering if maybe she should re-read DH since it seems she missed something along the way. "Fairytales are are more than real. Not because they tell us that dragons exist but because they tell us that they can be defeated." [GK Chesterton] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 19:21:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:21:09 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176780 Mike wrote: > I suppose if you believe the Gryffindors are bad and the Slytherins are good, then you would also believe you are receiving a "biased" POV in the worse sense of the word. In this case, I would say we truly are not reading the same books. JKR wrote from the Gryff POV because she also designated the Gryffs as the "Good Guys". Carol responds: Yes and no. We start out with the pov of a good (but not perfect) eleven-year-old newcomer to the WW, a wizard who didn't know that he was a wizard, much less the Boy Who Lived and all that. The whole Snape arc, and to some extent, the Draco arc, depends on our seeing the Slytherins as Harry sees them. Even in HBP, when we first see Snape as he is among the DEs, he is an ambiguous figure. We aren't privy to his thoughts. From the end of HBP until "The Prince's Tale," which constitutes an epiphany for Harry and, I would guess, for many readers, Snape is presented as evil (with clues to the contrary that Harry misses because he "knows" the truth). With Draco, whose father is a DE and who really is after both revenge and "glory," along with genuinely believing in the pure-blood agenda, his perception is a bit more accurate. But Draco changes in HBP as he learns what being a DE--and death--are really about, and Harry, who nearly kills him accidentally in the Sectumsempra incident and then witnesses Draco's fear and hseitation on the tower, the fractionally lowered wand in particular, begins to feel pity mixed with his contempt. By the end of DH, during which he has glimpses of Draco's plight (and the opportunity to contrast Draco's behavior with his father's), he not only understands Draco but saves his life (and Goyle's) at, to borrow a phrase, great personal risk. I won't go into Narcissa and Slughorn and Phineas Nigellus and Regulus, but all of them in the end help Harry, and through him, the reader, to see that the simplistic equation Slytherin = evil is not accurate, nor is its corollary, Gryffindor = good. Courage is not the sole property of Gryffindors; the Slytherin Snape is "probably the bravest man [Harry] ever knew" and the Gryffindor Wormtail is "Voldemort's most cowardly servant." The view of Slytherin that the books have presented from SS/PS onward (always with hints that Snape may not be the man Harry thinks he is) is subtly undermined from the Pensieve scene in OoP onward and overthrown completely by "The Prince's Tale." Even Bellatrix turns out to have a touch of humanity, concern and affection for her sister, even if they are countered and outweighed by her fanatical loyalty to the Dark Lord. (Is Bellatrix yet another instance of the dangers of obsessive love pointed out by Slughorn in his first Potions lesson in HBP)? We are meant, I think, to pity Draco, to forgive and admire Snape, to be proud of Slughorn for coming through in the end. The defeat of Voldemort does not come about solely through the efforts of Gryffindor (and its unsung allies, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff.) "And let it be noted that Slytherin House played its part! Let our contribution not be forgotten!" says Phineas Nigellus after the battle (DH Am ed. 747). Amen, Phineas. Harry's perception of Slytherin House has been distorted from the beginning by his first and second encounters with Draco, along with Hagrid's inaccurate remark about all DEs coming with Slytherin and the coincidence of feeling his scar hurt as Snape looks at him. It does not help that four of the five Slytherin boys in Harry's year are Death Eaters' sons (though we get only glimpses of Theo Nott, who does not become a Death Eater despite his father's being one), or that Harry's knowledge of Slytherin is confined almost solely to Draco and his thuggish cronies, Crabbe and Goyle, and to Snape, whose attempts to force him to follow directions and school rules through deducted points and detentions come across to Harry and the reader as bullying. This view of Slytherin in general and of Snape and Draco in particular is deliberate on JKR's part; she is setting up Harry and the reader for a reversal in "The Prince's Tale." Other indications of Slytherin's human face have already appeared in the flawed but generally likeable Slughorn, Narcissa's fears for her son, and Snape's gentlemanly handling of her distress in contrast to his sarcastic handling of Bellatrix and Wormtail even as he maintains his ambiguity by taking the Unbreakable Vow. My point is that Harry's view of Gryffindor as good and Slytherin as evil has been overturned by the end of the books. At least some Slytherins are good; others, perhaps the majority, if we look at the Slytherin students, are morally neutral. Even people like Lucius Malfoy, whom we have seen saying and doing evil things since CoS, has some good in him (he loves his son). Slughorn, who would rather hide than fight, chooses to fight. And Gryffindor is also imperfect, as Dumbledore's history amply illustrates (as does Harry's Crucio and Ron's and Hermione's temptation by the Elder Wand). Throughout the books, from Snape "causing" Harry's scar to hurt to Harry supposedly urging the snake to attack Justin Finch-Fletchley to Sirius Black "murdering" thirteen people to Snape "murdering" Dumbledore, things are not as they seem. In the last two books, and particularly in "The Prince's Tale," the veil has been lifted from Slytherin. It isn't perfect, by any means. Many of the students of Voldemort's generation and their sons became Death Eaters, as did even more Slytherin students of Snape's generation. But Snape himself is fully redeemed; Lucius Malfoy, perhaps, partially redeemed and certainly humbled. And, of Harry's generation, only three students become DEs or DE wannabes, and the most important of the three, Draco, learns that he is not a killer and does not enjoy coercion and torture. There will be no more Death Eaters. And cunning, as we see with Snape and Phineas Nigellus and Harry himself, can be used for good. Carol, who thinks that Harry's ability to see others clearly rather than judging by appearances is the chief lesson he learns in the books From coriandra2002 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 19:16:16 2007 From: coriandra2002 at yahoo.com (coriandra2002) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 19:16:16 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again (was: Dark Magic) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176781 > zeldaricdeau: > > Indeed. The real necessity of DA was only really known and fully > understood by a few people, and I don't think Marietta was one of > them. > > > > > I'm not defending Marietta, exactly. She should have stood up to Cho > > and refused to attend the first meeting. I agree, she should have been mature enough to say no and Cho should have been mature enough to respect her wishes. But, failing that, Harry, Hermione and Ron should have screened out people like her who were clearly unsuited for DA. The only people who should have been allowed to join should have been the ones who understood clearly what they were getting into and believed in what DA was doing. I'm not trying to excuse her or Cho, but the whole ugly mess could have been avoided with some foresight on the part on the three leaders. coriandra2002 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 20:10:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:10:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176782 Zanooda wrote: > Somehow I never thought that LV and GG dueled only five years after they parted ways. They were both only seventeen when they met, and it seems unlikely that by age twenty-two GG already had so much power, and built an army, and made bad things happen in Europe :-). Besides, first he spent some time looking for the Elder wand, I suppose. > > DD didn't say anything to Harry about "five years", it's from Rita's book: "... Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald" (p.359). I take it that they were five years after GG made his move against continental wizarding society, not five years after Ariana's death. > That's why I believe that "five years" were the years the wizarding society spent "pleading" with DD, according to Rita, and not the years that passed between Ariana's death and the duel. Carol responds: I agree completely, but since you've covered the canon, I'd like to approach the subject from a different angle. I think that the "five years" are supposed to coincide roughly with World War II, which began in Europe in 1939, Perhaps the pleas to DD to do something about Grindelwald began shortly after that, in or around 1940. And if we consider Hitler's rise to power as analogous with Grindelwald's (I'm not looking for exact parallels here), Hitler began his political career with speech-making in 1921 and by 1933 was Chancellor of Germany. Perhaps the young Grindelwald, after obtaining the Elder Wand and presumably becoming its master, was sidetracked for awhile by a futile search for the other two Hallows. Once GG realized that he was not going to find them, perhaps he used his considerable charisma to obtain a following and rose to power in the continental European WW in a way similar to Hitler's rise to power (which began in his early thirties). We know that Grindelwald eventually built prisons, which must mean that he had seized power of some sort of wizarding government (the German MoM?). By that time, he would have been enough of a threat for the British WW to fear that his power would expand to Britain and begin to appeal to DD for help. If we compare his rise to power with Voldemort's, Voldie disappeared for a long time (IIRC, it's ten year from Hepzibah Smith's murder to his application for the DADA position), during which time he was apparently making Horcruxes and gathering his old school chums to become the first DEs. What else he did (consorting with the worst of our kind, DD says somewhere) is unclear. Clearly, he wasn't apprenticing himself to Grindelwald, who was already in prison. In any case, it took another dozen years or so for him to show himself and openly recruit a new generation of DEs. He left school in 1945 and VW1 didn't begin until ca. 1970. That's thirty-five years of power-building and Dark magic practice and whatever else Voldie did to prepare himself to take over the WW (or at least, the British WW). Although Grindelwald wasn't preoccupied with his own immortality and Horcrux-making, he could have spent a similar amount of time preparing his own rise to power, practicing Dark magic, gathering followers, making speeches, getting himself elected to a powerful position, before making his bid to control the European WW and building those prisons. I assume that, like Hitler, he'd been in power quite a while before the British WW began to feel the threat and pressure DD to do something about it. Whether Dumbledore hesitated because of his former friendship or for some other reason is unclear, but that hesitation was certainly during the last years of Grindelwald's reign of terror and not from anything related to Ariana's death. All speculation, of course. Carol, who sees *lots* of annoying mathematical errors and inconsistencies in JKR's books, especially DH, but does not consider the five-year wait to fight Grindelwald to be one of them From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 20:42:23 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:42:23 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: <914434.26303.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176783 --- -jme- wrote: > > Hello Everyone! > > I just read DH and one of the questions that have > been bugging me is about the Fidelius on Godric's > Hollow. > > ... > > And so I am left with the question, what about > Godric's Hollow? If Peter Pettigrew as the Secret- > Keeper, how was it possible that Hermione and Harry > was able to see the ruins of the cottage? For that > matter, how were the "tourists" able to see the > cottage and leave those messages? ... bboyminn: As many of us here have long suspected and has Harry speculates as he observes the House at Godrics Hollows, when the Potter's died, the Secret Keeper Charm was broken. Now the house is protected by extreme muggle protecting Charms. Muggles can't see it and any thoughts of the seemingly empty lot are pushed from their mind when ever they occur. However, when magical tourists come close enough, they are able to see the place. There are some inconsistencies with the Secret Keeper charm being broken. The most obvious of which is that NOT ALL of the Potter's died. Thought perhaps the unprecedented explosion caused by Voldemort rebounding AK curse broke the spell or contributed to the spell being broken. At any rate, though Harry's speculation, JKR tells us the the Secret Keeper Charm was broken and that is why magical people can now see the house. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 6 21:41:30 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:41:30 -0000 Subject: What Next for Harry? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176784 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "salo.krano" wrote: > > Geoff: > "I'm sorry to fault your Maths but Harry was born on 31st July 1980. He > was 15 months old when his parents were killed" salo.krano: > Sorry I stand corrected I forgot Harry was 15 months old; I was only a > couple of months out. Geoff: More than that.... It was less than ten years from when his parents were killed that Harry started at Hogwarts which brings us back to the relevant academic year being 1997/98. salo.krano: > All I'm saying is, it's not impossible for JK to write another Harry > Potter book. After whole when Sherlock Holmes was killed off by his > creator, he was brought back once a campaign was started by the > readers. Geoff: Agreed, It is *possible* but is it likely? The problem is that *if* JKR were persuaded to write more, she has rather limited the possibilities up to the time of the epilogue by what she has written and what she said on her TV interview. I suppose she could go further than that point in time but Harry and Co. will probably have settled down into a somewhat mundane Auror world and there won't be the challenges and adrenalin of the Voldemort years. My gut feeling is that she'll stick to her guns and stay with the Encyclopaedia scheme. From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Sep 6 21:48:12 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 21:48:12 -0000 Subject: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176785 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "va32h" wrote: > > Well I agree and disagree. Actual dates are irrelevant - I don't > know why JKR bothered with them on the Potters' gravestones either. > Nick's deathday cake in CoS was written before the series became > insanely popular, I don't fault JKR for not realizing how obsessive > and nitpicky her readers would become. > > But in a larger sense - we have to be able to trust the author. To > feel that what she's telling us is important. When the author makes > a series of factual mistakes, it undermines that trust. Mus concurs: I agree entirely with this. It's possible in Wuthering Heights to work out a very strict calendar for pretty much every event, although it's not absolutely necessary for the larger story arc. But it shows an author at work who is meticulous. You see, I believed JKR when she said that the plotting had taken years, that she had notebooks and notebooks full of detailed workings- out. I assumed that she would have drawn up lists of what students were in which year (Flint, anyone?), that she'd know what properties she'd explicitly assigned to each spell and potion (how long *does* Polyjuice last, given that it was relevant for the plot in CoS and GoF?). I took her at her word when she said that she'd taken care (months of it) to rewrite when plot holes reared their ugly heads. I feel rather like I would feel if I were supervising the work of a student who led me repeatedly to believe that accuracy was paramount, only to read the submitted work and find it full of inaccuracy. Yes, the errors would annoy in themselves, but I'd also feel that I'd been misled as to what the student was actually doing all along. The implicit contract that JKR made with her reader (even if there were only ever one, even if there were never any) was that small details mattered, because she had shown us that they did - it was her choice to do so. If I had been reading a book where the small stuff didn't matter, then I would not feel let down. But she told - and more importantly showed - us that it did. She knew from early on that numbers were not her forte - why then did she not say to her editors that they needed to check them? Why, when her editors *must* have known that numbers might be a problem, did they not go over them with a fine-toothed comb? The end product reads like something that *wasn't* carefully put together. The numbers are, as Alla says, not crucial to the plot, but they are symptomatic of something more pervasive. Mus From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 22:04:22 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 15:04:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: What Next for Harry? Message-ID: <867722.46635.qm@web30210.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176786 <> No, not only. I was reading DH hoping for a reference to Randall Flagg. LOL! But the real reason that JKR used nineteen years was that it fit the circumstances of Ted's arc. At twenty years Fleur's daughter (she was obviously conceived within three months of the end of the war and named after the victory) would no longer have been in school and thus he couldn't see her off. But the general idea is that it is set about twenty years latter at the cusp of the new genertion. Ted would very much be Harry's Bill to James and Al if she ever does a sequel.. I keep on hoping Steven King does have some influence on JKR though because of one of three reasons. 1. He might be able to convince her to write another HP novel some day, a more adult one in the same way that Diane Duane has with the young wizards series. But JKR should take at least a ten year break. As an aside if I were to pick on person to continue the series besides JKR it would be Ms. Duane for two reason she has already written her own 'kvery succesful kids wizard series and two she is used to writing universes created by other writers, proof of which is her numerous Star Trek novels. 2. He might convince her to let him write a HP based novel or at least a short story for charity. Or he might convince her to start writing short stories of any sort, a form she seems to dislike. 3. Or three he might convince her to have the Harry Potter novels done over as graphic novels, as he had done to the Gunslinger series. Graphic novels can fill in nuances of character and setting that that you can't find in normal novels. Due to the pictures DA Jones --------------------------------- Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 22:18:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:18:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176787 lizzyben wrote: > > The DADA classes are, IMO, our best clue to what dark magic actually is. To learn a "defense against dark arts" spell, the spell has to be defending against dark magic. And in these classes, unforgiveable curses, hexes & jinxes are all seen as dark magic. In the Dueling Club of COS, Lockhart is supposed to be showing the students a "DADA" defense spell, while Snape attacks w/a presumed Dark spell. What spell does Snape attack with? Expelliarmus, which later becomes Harry's signature spell. Carol responds: I disagree that Expelliarmus is Dark magic. It seems to me to be the quintessence of DADA--disarm your opponent and you won't have to hurt him because he can't hurt you. That's why Harry uses it against Stan Hunpike--to keep Stan from hurting him without hurting Stan in return. As Harry points out, Stunning Stan from that height would probably have killed him. As Snape's Expelliarmus against Lockhart shows the students in the Duelling Club, without a wand, most wizards are as helpless as a Squib or a Muggle. It's very much a defensive spell, IMO, as opposed to Stupefy or Petrificus Totalus, which temporarily knock out or paralyze an opponent anc can be used either offensively or defensively. In fact, we see Harry's use of Expelliarmus against Stan Shunpike criticized by Lupin as insufficiently aggressive. (The ostensibly gentle Lupin has turned rather violent at this point, advocating killing, whereas Harry is arguing that blasting people who are in his way is Voldemort's job, DH Am. ed. 71.) We also see Harry use Expelliarmus at least twice against Voldemort, who both times is using the Killing Curse. Even though Harry technically doesn't disarm him either time, it still seems symbolically significant that Harry's merciful spell wins. (Now granted, even Expelliarmus could be used offensively, as Draco attempts to do, disarming Dumbledore to make it easier to kill him, so he thinks, but it seems to be primarily intended to disarm an attacker.) Nothing Dark about it, IMO. Now Serpensortia, which Snape tells Draco to use against Harry (as a test to see whether Harry is a Parselmouth?) seems Darkish (and a bit advanced for twelve-year-old Draco, but, oh, well). Nevertheless, since Snape easily vanishes the snake with a silent Evanesco, it can't be seriously Dark. The only other quintessentially defensive spell I can think of is Protego, which sets up a shield to protect the person it's cast against, but even it can knock a wizard off his feet or cause a spell to rebound against the caster. lizzyben: I think, in this series, Dark Magic is simply a form of combat magic. It's a weapon that can be used by all sides. As another poster has said, it is a term for violent spells in general. Carol: If you mean offensive as opposed to defensive combat magic, I'd agree with you. So something like the hex Harry tries to use against Draco in GoF to cause painful boils is definitely somewhat Dark as it causes pain and possible disfigurement, whereas merely blasting your opponent's wand out of his hand, while it may send him flying onto his back (as Protego also does in some cases) is not Dark in itself (though it can be used for Dark purposes, such as killing your now helpless opponent). Whatever that purple flame spell Dolohov used against Hermione is seems pretty Dark considering that it took about ten different potions to cure her. Sectumsempra, which could have caused Draco to bleed to death, also seems pretty Dark (though not as bad as we thought in HBP since the bleeding can be stopped without Snape's complex countercurse, even if the cuts themselves can't be healed or lost ears replaced). Lizzyben: > Now, there's still differences in how deadly each jinx or curse is, w/the most deadly curses are banned completely. But those are just differences of degree - like the difference between a BB gun (Jelly-Legs Jinx) & a bazooka (AK). "Dark Magic" is simply offensive battle spells - all jinxes, curses, etc. This is also consistent w/what JKR herself says on her website. Carol: Okay, agreed here, with hexes like Ginny's Bat-Bogey hex being somewhat worse than jinxes like Jelly-Legs (though I don't think the HBP's toenail hex is all that bad). The distinction, IMO, hasn't been fully thought out and the names don't always fit the category--isn't the Conjunctivitis Curse really a hex rather than a curse and just so-named for the alliteration, for example? But I still think that defensive spells like Protego and Expelliarmus are intended as DADA--defense against those other, darker, spells. As for counterjinxes (mentioned by JKR several times in OoP in particular), when have we ever seen one? Snape easily and silently parries Harry's offensive spells in "The Flight of the Prince," but we never see anyone else using similar moves. And countercurses seem to be applied mostly after the fact (Liberacorpus, the countercurse to Sectumsempra, Finite Incantatem), not in combat. BTW, not all jinxes are combat spells, as Hermione's jinxed parchment and Voldemort's jinxed DADA position show. But, okay--anything that knocks you out, injures you or disfigures you is to some degree Dark, with perhaps some allowance for how easily it can be "sorted out." Snape manages to end every single jinx or hex cast by the kids in the short-lived Duelling Club with a single Finite Incantatem, but he sends Goyle and Hermione to Madam Pomfrey for the boil hex and Densuageo respectively. (Maybe he doesn't want to wast class time dealing with them or be seen fixing Hermione's teeth ). lizzyben: > > I'm liking a general definition that dark magic is magic that involves causing violence or pain to others. So, poisons would be dark magic. And the twins' ton-tongue toffees might be as well. Carol: Well, yes and no. Much as I dislike the Ton-Tongue Toffee incident, Mr. Weasley easily sorts it out and there's no lasting damage. The potion in the basin in the cave is another matter altogether. I'd say that even with poisons, some are Darker than others. If it can be cured by stuffing a Bezoar down your throat (the poison in the mead that Ron drank), it's less Dark than a poison that causes mental and physical anguish that can only be quenched by drinking water which, when touched, will arouse Inferi to pull you under. As Hermione says, some poisons have no antidotes and some curses have no countercurse (like the curse on DD's arm that even Snape can only temporarily contain, not cure). Those, it seems to me, would be almost as Dark as the undead-related magic of Voldemort (Horcruxes, Inferi, resurrection potions involving blood, bone, and flesh). Speaking of potions, a potion that causes boils or a love potion that involves controlling the will of another person would be Dark magic as well, but not as Dark as poisons, with the relative Darkness of the poisons depending on the amount of suffering they cause and whether there's an antidote. lizzyben: > > It seems like the real division is between everyone else & Voldemort. Everyone else can (& does) use jinxes, dark items, even unforgiveable curses w/o being called a "dark wizard." The super-dark magic of Inferi & Horcruxes are something only Voldemort could or would do. Carol: Again, I don't quite agree. There's Voldemort (and perhaps Grindelwald, who contemplated creating an army of Inferi, according to DD)at one extreme, yes. But, then, there are Death Eaters who throw around the Unforgiveable Curses as if they were Toenail Hexes and, in the case of Dolohov, use unknown but very dangerous curses like the purple flames (the crimes that Karkaroff attributes to the various DEs in GoF show that several of them specialized in a particular Unforgiveable, with Mulciber being a specialist in the Imperius Curse, for example). Then, there are routine "Dark wizards" like the Blacks who keep jars of blood on their shelves and use troll legs as umbrella stands and mount the heads of old house-elves on the wall but nevertheless draw the line at murdering Muggle-borns (note that Blaise Zabini is a pure-blood supremacist who nevertheless holds DEs in contempt); then there are bullies like Teen!James and Teen!Sirius and the Weasley Twins and pre-HBP-Draco and maybe Ginny, with her attacks on Zacharias Smith; then there's Hermione, who blackmails Rita Skeeter and jinxes the parchment without warning anyone and modifies her parents' memories, always certain that she's doing the right thing but so did Umbridge; then there are Harry and Ron and the other DA members, who think that offensive magic is okay as long as they're using it but rarely use seriously Dark magic like the Cruciatus Curse and don't go around bullying people who annoy them as James did (unless you count hexing Draco and friends on the Hogwarts Express); then there's everybody else (the kids who don't duel each other in the hallways; the parents who use magic at work or to do the laundry and cooking; the teachers who use magic for teaching but not to punish students, etc.). I won't get into whether Transfiguring a hedgehog into a pincushion or vanishing kittens is Dark magic. I think it's cruelty to animals, myself, but that's just my opinion. Conjuring canaries out of thin air probably isn't Dark, but ordering them to attack ("Oppugno!") probably is. Carol, thinking about the degrees of pollution committed by Muggles (with deliberate dumping of hazardous waste or an unregulated coal-burning power plant on one end of the scale and driving your car to work on the other) and suspecting that Muggles aren't that different from Wizards, really From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 22:30:35 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:30:35 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: <5DA67769-E7CA-462D-A8AA-2F1775CCD723@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176788 Laura: > OK. So, yes, perhaps there are effective choices - I just > am not as quick at thinking of them as other people are. > > But the question still remains (perhaps only in my mind), > is it really that horrible to do an Imperio? So horrible > that it is an Unforgiveable? The person was not asked > to do anything that would be damaging to him/herself or > to others. It didn't involve a matter of conscience that the > person would regret if s/he had consciously performed > the act. The person was not rendered incapable of > making other informed, conscious decisions. The effect > was very short lived. > > It just doesn't seem that horrible to me. Lisa: I guess we could draw a parallel to human euthenasia. It's considered legally wrong -- murder, in fact. Whether it's done to put someone out of excrutiating suffering or not. i.e., it's an Unforgiveable. In our real-world example, we can refuse a feeding tube or some such device to prolong the life, but we cannot take the life. In the wizarding world, there are other spells to be used in various instances to achieve some means to some end, without using the Unforgiveable. Lisa From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 6 22:44:15 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:44:15 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176790 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > bboyminn: > > As many of us here have long suspected and has Harry > speculates as he observes the House at Godrics Hollows, > when the Potter's died, the Secret Keeper Charm was > broken. > Allie: Or maybe Dumbledore lifted the charm once it was no longer needed. He was the one who performed the spell that made Pettigrew secret-keeper, wasn't he, so presumably the one to cast the Fidelius charm? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 22:44:58 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:44:58 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: <5DA67769-E7CA-462D-A8AA-2F1775CCD723@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176791 Laura wrote: > OK. So, yes, perhaps there are effective choices - I just > am not as quick at thinking of them as other people are. > > But the question still remains (perhaps only in my mind), > is it really that horrible to do an Imperio? So horrible > that it is an Unforgiveable? The person was not asked > to do anything that would be damaging to him/herself or > to others. It didn't involve a matter of conscience that the > person would regret if s/he had consciously performed > the act. The person was not rendered incapable of > making other informed, conscious decisions. The effect > was very short lived. > > It just doesn't seem that horrible to me. Carol responds: I doubt that I'll change your mind, but here's why I think that Imperius, even if it only causes a student to hop on one foot around the room, is horrible. It's an invasion of the mind (admittedly, so are Legilimency and Obliviate) and it robs a person of free will or self-control. Another person is controlling you like a puppet, making you do things you wouldn't normally do and don't want to do. Barty Crouch Sr. uses it for years to control his son and keep him from running off to join Voldemort; Barty Jr. not only uses it on all his students, ostensibly to teach them what it feels like but not really teaching them how to resist it, but he later uses it to make Viktor Krum Crucio Cedric Diggory. Mulciber, a DE who specialized in the Imperius Curse, forced hundreds of people to do unspecified terrible things, perhaps to murder Muggles or torture people. The Imperius Curse can be used short-term, as Harry uses it against Travers and the goblin Bogrod, but it can also be used for long-term control, which makes it extremely dangerous. (Wormtail was supposed to be controlling Barty Crouch Sr. to make him do his work from home, but Crouch escaped.) Long-term use of the curse, especially on people who resist it, seems to result in brain damage, as we see with the "mad" Mr. Crouch and with Broderick Bode (although in his case the damage was compounded when he picked up the Prophecy orb, as he was commanded to do by Lucius Malfoy, who had Imperiused him.) Maybe its use is justified in a real emergency, just as AKing an intruder about to attack your children might be justified (though Stupefying or disarming the intruder would be better). But the invasion of another person's mind, especially with the intent to control that person and force him to act against his will and even his conscience, seems to me a terrible thing. Which is worse, the Cruciatus Curse that Krum cast against Cedric Diggory or the Imperius Curse that caused him to Crucio Cedric against his will? I'd say the Imperius Curse because it violated Krum's will and caused the Crucio, which he would never have performed had he not been forced to act against his will. I consider Krum innocent and Crouch guilty of both crimes. Carol, noting that many of the crimes during VW1 were committed not by Voldemort and his DEs but by people they had Imperio'd From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 22:54:35 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 22:54:35 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176792 > > lizzyben: > > > > OK... so there's a distinction between "dark magic" & "Dark Magic" > > that's never been outlined in the books at all? What is the > > distinction? Is it simply that it's (lower-case) dark magic when our > > side does it and (upper-case) Dark Magic when people we don't like > > do it? > > Mike: > In the same post you are quoting from, I had said that Dark was > irrespective of the spell caster, imo. I also said twice before on > this thread, and in my message above I add for the third time, that > Harry uses Dark Magic. I suppose at this point it's up to you to > accept that the message was clear or continue to believe the "our > side" vs "their side" message. As I've proposed before, the lack of a > positive does not prove the negative. lizzyben: It looks like we're on the same page there. The spell is dark (or not) regardless of who is casting it. > > lizzyben: > > > > But if it's such an instinctive gut reaction as "I know it when I > > see it," w/no further definition, how can you be sure that your > > opinion isn't being influenced by who is casting the spell (i.e. a > > beloved character or hated character), or what we are told & not > > shown (Slytherins use dark magic, Gryffindors don't). > > Mike: > But I do think it is well enough defined for me to "know it". And I > trust my ability to understand that definition and not be ruled by my > emotions when making this judgement call. YMMV lizzyben: Yet you also say that you hope that the author is manipulating our emotions - and that is her job. > > lizzyben: > > > > What I guess I'm saying is that the connotations & bias are so deep > > that it's really impossible to look at it objectively - we are > > totally steeped in the (biased) Gryffindor point of view, even > > though, upon closer examination, that POV really doesn't make any > > sense at all. > > Mike: > I suppose if you believe the Gryffindors are bad and the Slytherins > are good, then you would also believe you are receiving a "biased" > POV in the worse sense of the word. In this case, I would say we > truly are not reading the same books. JKR wrote from the Gryff POV > because she also designated the Gryffs as the "Good Guys". lizzyben: Oh, no, I don't believe Slytherins are good & Gryffindors are evil. I don't think JKR intended much ambiguity there - she clearly wrote Slytherins as "the bad guys." I've even argued that they might be damned in a Calvinist sense. But, as you say, the author has total control in how she manipulates readers' emotions & perceptions. And here, IMO readers are practically being pounded over the head w/the mantras of "good Gryfs" "evil Slyths". It's almost like propaganda - in fact, that's how propaganda works, as well. Engaging people's emotions by using code words & resonant metaphors that can serve to dehumanize the other. And Harry Potter hits all the buttons. The Slyths aren't just bad, they're troll-like, monkey-like, evil, "Dark", thuggish, racist, ugly, Nazis, nasty, fat, selfish, etc. etc. etc. It's over-the-top - throwing in the entire kitchen sink of negative imagery. What puzzles me is this dichotomy between what the author tells us & what she shows us. That's what doesn't make sense. I mean, if we truly are supposed to see Slyths as the bad ones, why is it that we usually see Gryffindors beating *them* up instead of the other way around? Why do we see more Gryffindor bullies than Slytherin bullies? It's odd. > > lizzyben: > > I think it's very possible to create a coherent alternate POV in > > which *Gryffindor* House is really the House of Dark Magic, & our > > protagonists are potentially dangerous Dark Wizards. > > > > > Mike: > Sure, go ahead and write an alternate story too. As long as it's fair > game to remove all context from canon, we might as well argue that > Tom Riddle perceived a Dark Wizard was born to two of your former > House B students and attempted to save the world from his pre- > ordained reign of terror. Nice idea, why don't you write it? In the > meantime, I'll continue to debate the books JKR wrote. lizzyben: Well, that's exactly what I was trying to do - remove the "context" from the canon & just report the events. "Context" is all the imagery of "good, noble, wonderful Gryfs" vs. "evil, ugly, nasty Slyths" that permeates the narrative. I just took the same events & gave it a different spin - and it's amazing how much more sinister House B students start to look once you start referring to them as "Dark Wizards" "gang" "dangerous" etc. It's all about the code words. And also, I was pointing out that the Gryffindor students use an awful lot of violence against other students. In fact, if you did a comparison, I bet you'd find many more incidents of Gryffindor students using "dark magic" against Slytherin students than the reverse. And "dark magic" hexes are essentially violent spells of different degrees. Why is that we so often see the "good guys" using "dark magic"? Isn't that supposed to be a Slytherin thing? Except it isn't. Mostly, what happens is that a Slytherin student (or Zacharias Smith) enters the scene, says something obnoxious, and is quickly hexed/cursed/jinxed by the Gryffindors as payback. Draco's the best example of this - I think his role is to be, essentially, target practice. Violence is satisfying, but it's even more satisfying when you really feel like that awful horrible person *deserves* it. Draco keeps popping up just when our heros are most stressed/angry to serve as a much-needed outlet for their anger as he is hexed into oblivion. And most often, it's the Gryffindor students that seem to use "dark magic" spells against other students who annoy them. But the imagery has so manipulated us into associating Dark Magic w/the "other" we don't even really notice this. That was my point, really, w/the different spin on the events. If you take away the context, it's easier to see just how many examples of this there really are. > > lizzyben > > Which is the real house of "Dark Magic" here? House A or House B? > > > > Mike: > Oh, I don't know. So the Death Eaters were really the good guys, eh? > That Tom Riddle was so loveable, wasn't he? Damn that Harry for > mucking up the works. > lizzyben: I wasn't referring to Voldemort there. I was referring to all the various incidents of Gryf students using violent/dark magic, hexes, etc. against other students at Hogwarts. And what does one have to do w/the other? Yes, Voldemort is evil. What does that have to do w/Hermione hexing McLaggen so Ron can get on the team? Or Ginny hexing Smith cause she doesn't like him? etc. Which students do we most often see using dark or violent magic? It think it's the Gryffindors. Yet they sincerely believe that they *hate* the Dark Arts, & the Slytherins who practice it. That level of projection & hypocrisy is just facinating to me. And JKR did it! Why? Why didn't we see bad Draco using tons of dark magic hexes instead of good Ginny? Well, IMO, it's because we are being emotionally manipulated into enjoying violence. That's why we most often see the "good guys" engaging in these sorts of spells. If Draco hexed Harry, we'd be angry, but when Harry hexes Draco - we're amused. Minor dark magic is described as "irritating, but amusing", right? Amusing to whom? The caster, not the victim. In this series, readers are placed into the role of the caster of dark spells, the bully, the prankster, and get a vicarious kick out of the violence they inflict. And, because the victims are usually so unsympathetic (evil, ugly, nasty, Slyths) & the caster is so sympathetic (heroic, good, noble) we don't even need to feel bad about it. Probably the best example of this is the ferret-bouncing incident. Harry, and the readers, laugh when Moody transforms Draco into a ferret & bounces him against the floor. Because Moody is a sympathetic character - a good guy, who's giving some deserved payback to a bad guy. If we had seen the Death Eater Crouch transforming a student & slamming him against the floor, it wouldn't be so funny - cause then we'd see it as a bad guy torturing a student. But it's the same exact incident; the same exact violence. The role of the caster determines how readers perceive that use of violence - whether we approve or disapprove. And IMO *that's* why we see more examples of Gryffindors using dark/violent magic against Slytherins than the other way around - it's more amusing & enjoyable that way. Slytherin students are the "bad guys", and also the "whipping boys" for the Gryffindor students. One role serves the other. If they weren't so bad, it wouldn't be so much fun to beat them up. lizzyben From urghiggi at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 23:44:48 2007 From: urghiggi at yahoo.com (urghiggi) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:44:48 -0000 Subject: JKR Brought it Upon Herself In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176793 Mus wrote:> > She knew from early on that numbers were not her forte - why then did > she not say to her editors that they needed to check them? Why, when > her editors *must* have known that numbers might be a problem, did > they not go over them with a fine-toothed comb? > > The end product reads like something that *wasn't* carefully put > together. Julie H adds: Yes, yes -- as i've been saying since DH came out -- sloppy, sloppy editing work. if you are working with someone purported to be a creative genius (not to mention a huge generator of cash for your publishing company) -- your job as an editor is to make the creative genius look really, really good. I'm an editor. I work with architects. Other kinds of creative geniuses. Often their writing needs some heavy work. They're not always the most detail-minded when it comes to writing -- especially when they are so immersed in the work that they forget what they have (and have not) adequately explained to the readers. So many points in DH cry out for clarification. The everlasting polyjuice, the ambiguous nature of the Deathstick's alliance, tons of other nitpicky stuff. Were the editors too blinded by the stardust to see these things? So irksome. So fixable if only some people had been doing their jobs as editors (or been allowed to do so). Even Jo admits that OoP is considerably too long. Another probable case of sloppy editing, or editors who've been hamstrung by someone higher up. I'm sure the time pressure didn't help, either. Julie H, chicago From prep0strus at yahoo.com Thu Sep 6 23:54:01 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 23:54:01 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176794 lizzyben: And IMO *that's* why we > see more examples of Gryffindors using dark/violent magic against > Slytherins than the other way around - it's more amusing & enjoyable > that way. Slytherin students are the "bad guys", and also > the "whipping boys" for the Gryffindor students. One role serves the > other. If they weren't so bad, it wouldn't be so much fun to beat > them up. > > > lizzyben > Prep0strus: I still think that Slytherins are the whipping boys for JKR, and for the reader, but not necessarily for the Griffindors. She clearly hasn't done a good enough job in showing what she expects us to believe, but I think it's clear that the Slytherins DO deserve whatever they get, and probably more. She scatters just enough moments through the series to remind you that Draco takes something away from helpless Neville, is plotting to kill the headmaster, etc., while the Griffindors act more in a more retaliatory manner, which gives it the feel of being acceptable. Also, the way you describe 'dark magic' through you post is still just one interpretation. I think it's valid, especially considering how terrible a job JKR did explaining herself, but I still (irrationally based on what we were shown, I admit) believe that somehow there is a difference between the 'dark' magic we are told slytherins are interested in and the curses hexes and million other little things we see done in the series. I know we weren't really shown that, and there's no way to make it consistent, but we were 'told' it, and I do think that is what JKR meant to do, even though she failed. And so while it bothers me in her storytelling, it doesn't bother me in a sense of moral ambiguity - not that there aren't more than enough examples of that as well. Since I'm hovering near the topic... Marietta. Is it primary canon that the scars remain, or is that JKR in an interview? Because I don't remember thinking there would be permanent scarring, and I would prefer to simply ignore that out of book canon statement (if that's where it's from). Because the curse itself didn't bother me. It may have made more sense to warn people about it, especially if Hermione didn't think it could be circumnavigated, and I think there should have been more of an alarm associated with it (was there? I'm blanking and can't find the book)... but really, I was ok with the curse itself. A nasty, very visual way to punish someone. And let's not pretend she didn't deserve it. She may not be 100% certain Voldemorte is back, but she knows what Umbridge is like. I'm sure by that time more than enough students have come back with bleeding hands, and seen how worthless their DADA courses were to understand how she was... and what was in store for the students she was telling on. Cho included. They weren't going to get detention cleaning for Filch. It was going to be BAD. But, to get back to the curse... a powerful, long standing, difficult to treat curse... fine. But actual lasting scars? So few things cause lasting scars in this series. Harry can lose all the bones in his body - people get broken, sliced up in every way, and are healed. Hermione mucks up the polyjuice potion and takes forever to heal, but recovers as well. The offhanded way JKR can say Marietta doesn't recover from the scarring seems unnecessarily severe - yeah, maybe it's funny to her because Marietta is a traitor, but it's really way more problematic in the sense that Hermione would be participating in magic that could have that much of a permanent impact - which is something i HAD associated with dark magic. So, I'm going to pretend that wasn't said, and that the hex was hard to cure and took a while... but still, it wasn't the kind of dark magic that can be comparable to George never getting his ear back. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Fri Sep 7 00:06:29 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:06:29 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176795 > Perhaps there is a symbolic idea of repentance for Slytherin house, > but then it seems that no one else needs repentance, just Slytherins. > The Baron might be repentant, and therefore in some theological > views in moral equivalence with non-murderers, but from a story point > of view, JKR made the Slytherin ghost a murderer, finding another > opportunity to show us that Slytherins, from old to new, are worse > than everyone else. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) If you ask me Helena Ravenclaw could do with some repentence herself, she stole a treasure from her own mother didn't she? She could also do with a little forgiveness. Holding a grudge for a thousand years doesn't strike me as being very spiritually advanced. BTW we haven't any idea have we exactly why Nearly Headless Nick was beheaded? Treason and/or murder are his most likely crimes. Of course he might have been innocent... Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 7 00:19:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:19:29 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176796 prep0sterous: > Since I'm hovering near the topic... Marietta. Is it primary canon > that the scars remain, or is that JKR in an interview? Magpie: In canon we get that the pustules are still there at the end of OotP and at the beginning of HBP (she's covered up). So JKR does make a point of saying a book later that it's still going on. To me that indicated that yes, I should assume it's still there unless I hear otherwise. I thought I would hear about them going away or that something would be done in DH (I assumed that's why it was put in again, so that I'd worry about it). That's why it was valid to ask if they *ever* faded away, and JKR said it left scars forever, which does go along with canon in that last we're told they're still there. Remember Dudley needed his tail removed surgically. prep0sterous: > And let's not pretend she didn't deserve it. She may not be 100% > certain Voldemorte is back, but she knows what Umbridge is like. I'm > sure by that time more than enough students have come back with > bleeding hands, and seen how worthless their DADA courses were to > understand how she was... and what was in store for the students she > was telling on. Cho included. They weren't going to get detention > cleaning for Filch. It was going to be BAD. Magpie: Well, I don't have to pretend she didn't deserve it because I don't think she did--and apparently neither do you since you've lessened the punishment in your mind to make it lighter. For me it's kind of a side issue that there's no reason to think she saw anybody with bleeding hands (in itself *still* less horrible a punishment than Marietta gets), adn that worthless DADA classes hardly qualifies permenant disfigurement to me. If JKR really expected me to think she deserved *this* never-ending punishment because I was supposed to imagine something BAD happening (even though actually nothing happened to the DA) then she failed. I was okay with the curse at the time (though annoyed that it seemed to be presented as Hermione being *smart* when Hermione had actually been anything but!). So it doesn't surprise me that your thinking the punishment was fair went along with your thinking there was no permenant scarring, while the whole reason I thought the punishment was too much was because it seemed clear it *was* permenant. We both would have been okay with Marietta marked temporarily. (Even though I'm also annoyed with the usual lack of lesson for Gryffindors--Hermione should have gotten a smack down for her own stupidity and carelessness as well, and instead she seems cheered on by everyone with no one questioning her own glaring mistakes. This was no triumph for Hermione.) prep0sterous: > > But, to get back to the curse... a powerful, long standing, difficult > to treat curse... fine. But actual lasting scars? So few things > cause lasting scars in this series. Harry can lose all the bones in > his body - people get broken, sliced up in every way, and are healed. > Hermione mucks up the polyjuice potion and takes forever to heal, but > recovers as well. The offhanded way JKR can say Marietta doesn't > recover from the scarring seems unnecessarily severe - yeah, maybe > it's funny to her because Marietta is a traitor, but it's really way > more problematic in the sense that Hermione would be participating in > magic that could have that much of a permanent impact - which is > something i HAD associated with dark magic. Magpie: Yeah, exactly--that's how I feel. Unnecessarily severe because it's pleasantly sadistic. Marietta and the Longbottoms. In order to make it anything other than that, imo, you not only have to pretend JKR didn't say that but that she didn't also in canon tell us the curse was permenant by dragging it into the following book so Harry could get pleasure out of it again. Once that happened the author would, imo, have to tell us that it went away, and she didn't--which is why she was asked, and why she responded that no, whenever it did finally go away, it left permenant scarring. I was wrong in thinking Marietta's pustules were still there because it was going somewhere, but I was right in guessing the level of cruelty the author intended. She loathes traitors! -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 00:18:54 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:18:54 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176797 > If you ask me Helena Ravenclaw could do with some repentence > herself, she stole a treasure from her own mother didn't she? She > could also do with a little forgiveness. Holding a grudge for a > thousand years doesn't strike me as being very spiritually advanced. > BTW we haven't any idea have we exactly why Nearly Headless Nick was > beheaded? Treason and/or murder are his most likely crimes. Of course > he might have been innocent... > > Rowena Grunnion-Ffitch > lizzyben: Alas, no. Nearly Headless Nick gallantly & chivalrously tried to use a spell to straighten a Lady's teeth - when he turned them into tusks instead. A mistake anyone could make, I'm sure you'll agree. And he was so sorry, and cried, and tried to correct the spell, but he was still put to death. And we think wizarding justice is bad *now? Jeez. Nick's song was in the first draft of COS - "It was a mistake any wizard could make Who was tired and caught on the hop One piffling error, and then, to my terror, I found myself facing the chop. Alas for the eve when I met Lady Grieve A-strolling the park in the dusk! She was of the belief I could straighten her teeth Next moment she'd sprouted a tusk. I cried through the night that I'd soon put her right But the process of justice was lax; They'd brought out the block, though they'd mislaid the rock Where they usually sharpened the axe." http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/nick.html From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 00:29:04 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:29:04 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176798 prep0strus: > Since I'm hovering near the topic... Marietta. Is it primary canon > that the scars remain, or is that JKR in an interview? Alla: "Louie: Did mariettas pimply formation ever fade J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor!" Oh and was I glad that JKR defined pretty clear IMO what she intended Marietta to be? Yes, I unashamedly was. I loathe a traitor indeed. I am not asking anybody to agree with me, but I do despise what Marietta did and glad that JKR seems to think the same. She could have stressed lots of mitigating circumstances if she wanted to IMO - show that Marietta was scared that her mom's job would be in jeopardy, OR did what they did in the movie with Cho, or show Umbridge indeed interrogate Marietta and force the info out of her. She did not do any of that and the picture I get is that Marietta deliberately betrayed her fellow students, she made sure that their futures lay in the hand of Umbridge of all people. The punishment is harsh, no question about it and certainly I would not Okay with it in RL, but again since we are in book verse and I do not feel a need to think of RL equivalent punishments for things like that, I am perfectly fine with it. I had argued in the past that JKR intended Marietta to be mini Pettigrew of the sort - not AS serious, but in essense the same. I happen to think that it is so. Do I think Pettigrew deserved what he got? Most definitely. Same with Marietta for me. I do not buy that JKR intended for DA to be kids' game. JMO, Alla From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Fri Sep 7 00:32:58 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 10:32:58 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius Message-ID: <20070907103258.CTR94220@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176799 Steve: >At any rate, though Harry's speculation, JKR tells us the the Secret Keeper Charm was broken >and that is why magical people can now see the house. Sharon: If that is the case why wasn't the Secret Keeper's Charm broken at 12 Grimmauld Place when DD died? It would seem that if the Secret Keeper's charm actually was broken at the Potter's house in Godric's Hollow, then it was broken by dark or powerful magic of some kind -- the kind that was perpetrated when Voldemort failed to kill Harry. Perhaps it was part of the magic created by Lily's sacrifice, or it could have just been, as Steve said, the massive power of the magic that *killed* Voldemort. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Sep 7 01:02:13 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:02:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176800 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I had argued in the past that JKR intended Marietta to be mini > Pettigrew of the sort - not AS serious, but in essense the same. I > happen to think that it is so. Do I think Pettigrew deserved what he > got? Most definitely. Same with Marietta for me. I do not buy that > JKR intended for DA to be kids' game. Mus responds: But Pettigrew was an adult. Marietta, in OotP, was not. We know that she was in a position where her loyalties were likely to be torn, and we know that because we're told it in a book which features a teenaged, SHOUTY!1! immature Harry, sulking when Ron is made Prefect, smashing Dumbledore's gadgets and generally lapsing into spoilt-child behaviour. We believed that Harry because it made sense at his age - that's why we all applauded how she was portraying Our Hero growing up realistically. It fitted because teenagers make stupid choices - after all one of those stupid choices led to Sirius getting killed. It's not fair at the same time to judge Marietta as if she were an adult. When Cho tries to get Harry to be a little more understanding of her friend, he responds that "Ron's dad works for the Ministry too" [OotP, UK hb: 561]. He's being singularly undiscriminating here. Ron has a rather different history to Marietta. He's been through some pretty hairy stuff with Harry, his father is an Order member and has been attacked for it, he's been privy to the same information from trusted Order members about what is going on that Harry has, his uncles were killed in the last war. His loyalties are *not* torn as Marietta's are. I'm not saying that Marietta was right. I'm saying that we're given a portrait of a teenager who makes the wrong choice - albeit one her mother would have wanted her to make - and gets scarred for life by Hermione. It's a pretty mean way to treat a child. Compare Percy. He's older, and he is a willing collaborator, with no suggestion that he's trying to do what his parents would want. He emerges unblemished. Mus From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 01:17:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:17:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176801 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > I had argued in the past that JKR intended Marietta to be mini > > Pettigrew of the sort - not AS serious, but in essense the same. I > > happen to think that it is so. Mus responds: > > But Pettigrew was an adult. Marietta, in OotP, was not. We know > that > she was in a position where her loyalties were likely to be torn, and > we know that because we're told it in a book which features a > teenaged, > SHOUTY!1! immature Harry, sulking when Ron is made Prefect, smashing > Dumbledore's gadgets and generally lapsing into spoilt-child > behaviour. Alla: Well, yes and that is why IMO Marietta does not get killed with self strangling silver hand, doesn't she? See, I do not believe that JKR meant to distinguish much between the **act** itself - act of treachery I mean, only between severity of it. Pettigrew was delivering information on his best friends and comrades for a year in essense, no? Marietta delivering an information about her friends and comrades **once**. The only differences I see, is well, that the people whom Marietta betrayed were not killed. But as I also said in the past to me the possibility of them being expelled, all twenty something members of DA was quite clear and possibility of Azkaban - well, close enough. Do we **know** that Marietta was torn? Well, frankly no I do not. There was a hints of that, sure, but did I see it closely? Nope, not at all. I am being repetitive, but there was a perfect way IMO to establish Marietta as torn teenager, making a stupid choice - she could have went to her **mother** and told about DA IMO. JKR did not show that. She could have shown that Umbridge beat information out of her in essense, but no I do not see that either. So again IMO conclusion that Marietta willfully and deliberately **went to Umbridge** on her own is a valid reading. Mus: > I'm not saying that Marietta was right. I'm saying that we're given > a > portrait of a teenager who makes the wrong choice - albeit one her > mother would have wanted her to make - and gets scarred for life by > Hermione. It's a pretty mean way to treat a child. Alla: And I understand and disagree. I think we **could** have seen what you describe, but IMO it remains ambiguous at best, and may I say IMO **nobody** treated Marietta that way. Nobody. The hex was designed to mark a **traitor**, any traitor. So, nobody was targetting Marietta as person, the target was IMO the act of treachery. JMO, Alla From elfundeb at gmail.com Fri Sep 7 01:37:46 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 21:37:46 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709061837g657fd05fr65b6cf57e4f5a96@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176802 lizzyben: Which is the real house of "Dark Magic" here? House A or House B? Debbie: Thanks for a delightfully entertaining picture of "House B." ;-) What it illustrates so well, and what JKR's comments about Slytherin seem not to acknowledge, is that there are at least two sides to every story. It's not hard to view the Gryffindors as a bunch of arrogant hex-loving bullies whose transgressions have the tacit, if not express, approval of the headmaster, if one spends a few moments in Slytherin shoes. Which is very easy to do when she sorts into Slytherin a poorly dressed but brilliant outcast lacking in social graces who is seeking the house of brains. Mike: Sure, go ahead and write an alternate story too. As long as it's fair game to remove all context from canon, we might as well argue that Tom Riddle perceived a Dark Wizard was born to two of your former House B students and attempted to save the world from his pre- ordained reign of terror. Nice idea, why don't you write it? In the meantime, I'll continue to debate the books JKR wrote. Debbie: But it's not an alternative story. It's the same story, but from the POV of a character who is not the author's POV character. An author can't force a reader to limit him/herself to the "official" POV. If characters are well drawn, readers are going to be sympathetic to different points of view. Just because Harry doesn't see something in a certain way doesn't mean the reader can't appreciate that POV. JRK may have intended us to identify with the Gryffindors and to accept that the Slytherins are and have always been the Bad House, but JKR has a talent for making her punching bags into sympathetic characters. They are not cartoon cutouts who can be steamrollered and emerge unscathed a moment later. It's all too easy step outside of her POV box and step into the box of the Other. Perhaps I'm reading HP subversively by stepping out of the intended POV, but her treatment of the residents of the supposedly evil house of Slytherin seems to encourage me to do so. And in the real world, being able to see the other side's POV is a necessary first step in healing divisions. lizzyben: Knockturn Alley seems to have various "dark items", though this isn't defined most of the time. It's probably the same kind of stuff they found in the Black House. What I can't understand is what a "Dark Wizard" actually *does* all day. For example, Orion Black, Sirius' father is a "dark wizard". So... what? Does he go around all day using jinxes & curses against people? I don't think so. What makes a dark wizard dark? I don't think we ever get a real explanation. Debbie: I was wondering that myself. The best I can come up with is that a dark wizard either (a) spends his spare time dabbling in the darker forms of dark magic (i.e., not practicing his Leg-Locker Curses or Bat-Bogey Hexes but developing curses that cause harm that can't be remedied, or even worse, that tamper with one's soul) or (b) don't believe in civil rights and are willing to use Dark Magic to enforce their own views, or (c)supports wizards who engage in (a) or (b). Or, another explanation is that to James (and Sirius), Dark Wizard and Slytherin are more or less synonymous. Or, lizzyben: What IS consistent, IMO, is that jinxes, hexes, & curses have always been presented as dark magic (both on her website & in canon). Which fits in nicely w/a general scheme of "dark magic" as violent, offensive or combative spells. And this means that the good guys use dark magic often throughout the series. Debbie: Agreed. And, moreover, it is expected that most, if not all wizards will employ hexes, curses and the like at some point in their lives. The WW is presented as a more violent place than our world, perhaps because of the ease with which the damage (if any) done by mild forms of dark magic can be repaired. A Jelly-Legs Curse is easily rectified by a counter-spell, and no lasting harm is done. Madam Pomfrey can mend many others in a trice. Indeed, I would argue that one function of the DADA class is to train young witches and wizards to handle and counteract such tomfoolery, because it happens all the time. To go back to the prior question, maybe the Gryffindors think that someone is not a Dark Wizard unless they use powerful curses that have no antidote and therefore have lasting effects (unless you are near Severus Snape, of course). Sectumsempra is one such curse, as is AK (which is kind of permanent, yes?), as well as whatever curses were put on the Peverell ring and the opal necklace. Also, hexes or curses that cause insanity or purple postules which Madam Pomfrey cannot fix. Perhaps one reason so many of us like Snape is that he was right all along about Potter. The fact that Potter's ultimate goal is the defeat of a Dark Lord who warrants comparison with Adolf Hitler does not excuse him or his gang from practicing dark magic. Prep0strus: The founder placed a monster to kill people. The ghost is a former murderer. The head of house is a nasty, angry man working through his own repentance. Its most famous graduate is a monster himself, as well as an attempted genocide. Its graduates that we have met are participants in this movement. Its current students are bullies and DE neophytes. Perhaps there is a symbolic idea of repentance for Slytherin house, but then it seems that no one else needs repentance, just Slytherins. The Baron might be repentant, and therefore in some theological views in moral equivalence with non-murderers, but from a story point of view, JKR made the Slytherin ghost a murderer, finding another opportunity to show us that Slytherins, from old to new, are worse than everyone else. Debbie: But Christianity (at least my tradition) teaches that no one is worthy. The faithful are not devoid of sin, but fail to meet expectations every day. Perhaps that was JKR's point in making Harry use the Cruciatus Curse. He is not the Jesus of the Potterverse. Harry is a human being with human temptations, to which he sometimes succumbs. In other words, everyone needs repentance. Slytherins have more temptations, but everyone is tempted. Prep0strus: I still think that Slytherins are the whipping boys for JKR, and for the reader, but not necessarily for the Griffindors. She clearly hasn't done a good enough job in showing what she expects us to believe, but I think it's clear that the Slytherins DO deserve whatever they get, and probably more. She scatters just enough moments through the series to remind you that Draco takes something away from helpless Neville, is plotting to kill the headmaster, etc., while the Griffindors act more in a more retaliatory manner, which gives it the feel of being acceptable. Debbie: Whether you think the Slytherins deserve what they get depends on your views on vengeance and vigilante justice. In my code of justice, we don't hex people because they're bad people, for the same reason that our justice system doesn't incarcerate people because they're bad and they're going to harm us if we don't. Slytherins have a bad rap as a group, so I'm not surprised their motto seems to be that the best defense is a good offense. In the long run, though, this will just beget more violence, which is exactly what we saw in the books. Draco Malfoy went from trying to get the Trio punished in PS/SS for being out of bounds to ethnic slurs in CoS to bearing false witness against Buckbeak in PoA and eventually to scheming to kill the Headmaster in HBP. And in between we had episodes like the train stomp in GoF. Not even an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but a stomp for a threat. In the end, I don't think the Gryffindors are better than the Slytherins. It's their circumstances that are different. Debbie who doesn't want to get started on how the cultish personal loyalties of each group to their founders have skewed their judgment, but notes how the Gryffindors were lucky in this regard [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 01:39:52 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:39:52 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176803 Magpie: > I was okay with the curse at the time (though annoyed that it seemed to be presented as Hermione being *smart* when Hermione had actually been anything but!). *(snip)* (...Hermione should have gotten a smack down for her own stupidity and carelessness as well, and instead she seems cheered on by everyone with no one questioning her own glaring mistakes. This was no triumph for Hermione.) Ceridwen: Completely divorced from the scarring issue, this was a huge failure for Hermione. She didn't mention the hex, which to me would be like putting the fine print of a contract in invisible ink, but that's just the tip of it. Her method, no matter what it did to any supposed traitors, did not protect the DA. There was no prior warning to the raid on the meeting. Everyone was captured. The curse did not prevent this. The curse failed. Hermione did not put any thought into this. As someone else said (Mus?), the trio should have vetted everyone who joined, and not allowed just anyone who showed up to sign the paper. Ceridwen. From va32h at comcast.net Fri Sep 7 01:49:37 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 01:49:37 -0000 Subject: Nothing New Under the Sun (was Dark Magic WAS: Re:help wit In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709061837g657fd05fr65b6cf57e4f5a96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176804 Mike wrote: (a bunch of other stuff, but then this:) Nice idea, why don't you write it? In the meantime, I'll continue to debate the books JKR wrote. va32h: Is there anything to debate anymore, wrt the books JKR wrote? I'm starting to think, no. Although there are certainly topics that readers do not agree on, have we not made pretty much every argument that can be made on those topics? I know I've repeated myself at least a few times, and I've had some major deja vu in other topics. For the life of me, I can't think of anything new to discuss - and I don't think there will be, until the HBP movie comes out, after which we can talk about how good/bad the adaptation was. va32h From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 02:04:39 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:04:39 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176805 Allie: > > Or maybe Dumbledore lifted the charm once it was no longer needed. He > was the one who performed the spell that made Pettigrew secret-keeper, > wasn't he, so presumably the one to cast the Fidelius charm? > Snape's Witch: No, Dumbledore definitely did not perform the spell, because he (and everyone else) thought Sirius Black was the Secret Keeper. BTW Black was never the SK in case anyone asks!! Since Lily was a charms whiz, I expect she's the one who performed the spell. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Sep 7 02:13:11 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:13:11 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: New Inconsistency - Shell Cottage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176806 In a message dated 9/4/2007 9:40:22 A.M. Central Daylight Time, aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au writes: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176807 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > And I understand and disagree. I think we **could** have seen what > you describe, but IMO it remains ambiguous at best, and may I say > IMO **nobody** treated Marietta that way. Nobody. The hex was > designed to mark a **traitor**, any traitor. So, nobody was > targetting Marietta as person, the target was IMO the act of > treachery. Mus understands and disagrees too. :-) There's two different things going on, I think. The first is straightforwardly Hermione's actions. While you're right to say that the target was anyone who told, and not Marietta in particular, in a way that makes it worse (for me). Hermione acted as judge and executioner (metaphorically) on anyone who told, regardless of who it was or what the circumstances were. It was untargetted retribution; in a word, unjust. What she says is " 'I - I think everybody should write their name down, just so we know who was here. But I also think,' she took a deep breath, 'that we all ought to agree not to shout about what we're going. So if you sign, you're agreeing not to tell Umbridge or anyone else what we're up to'." [OotP, UK pb: 309] "Or anyone else." But Harry must have told someone - which is why Sirius and Lupin gave him the Christmas present they did. Hermione's parchment is not only misleading, but it's selective in how it interprets its purpose. Yes, you may say this is a minor point, and that Sirius and/or Lupin should have been in on the deal, but there is clearly more to Hermione's parchment than meets the eye, and there is certainly more than meets the eyes of the DA members. They are told that they are "agreeing" (not "promising", not "swearing") not to tell, and they are not told that the punishment will be lifelong disfigurement. It's a magically binding contract where everyone but Hermione is unaware of the real terms, and where only one person gets punished, although at least one other breaks the agreement as stated. One can see why goblins might become pathologically suspicious of dealing with wizards. The second is JKR's actions. She made the choice to show us a child who we know had torn loyalties - torn at least between her mother and her friend Cho. That's part of being a teenager, but JKR punishes a child for life for making the wrong choice (and doesn't punish Percy at all). It's merciless. And because she chose not to define Dark Magic, because she chose to have Gryffindors do some pretty nasty things, she is giving a pretty murky picture of what good and evil are in her world. This isn't a world where good people are sometimes faced with doing bad things for the right reasons (we live in one of those) - it's a world where a bad thing is not a bad thing if a White Hat does it. Ugly stuff done by White Hats is either played for comedy, or justified without question. On a possibly related note, I realised with a shock the other night that there is only one significant single mother in the heptology (I don't think Dean's is significant), with a child and a broken marriage. Merope is a pretty chilling trope. For this reader, there's a lot of hatred in these books. Mus From jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 7 02:18:45 2007 From: jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net (jbmwfb69) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:18:45 -0000 Subject: harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176808 In book 7 Harry's grown up and shows true courage. Who does he get it from, his mother or father? Jacob From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 02:44:24 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:44:24 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176809 > Mus understands and disagrees too. :-): > > There's two different things going on, I think. > > The first is straightforwardly Hermione's actions. While you're right > to say that the target was anyone who told, and not Marietta in > particular, in a way that makes it worse (for me). Hermione acted as > judge and executioner (metaphorically) on anyone who told, regardless > of who it was or what the circumstances were. It was untargetted > retribution; in a word, unjust. > Alla: Or Hermione acted as someone who attempted to defend herself and her friends who acted in opposition to Umbridge regime. Mus: >> The second is JKR's actions. She made the choice to show us a child > who we know had torn loyalties - torn at least between her mother and > her friend Cho. That's part of being a teenager, but JKR punishes a > child for life for making the wrong choice (and doesn't punish Percy at > all). It's merciless. Alla: What is merciless? That fifteen year old who brought to Umbridge the futures of her friends gets scars for life? In the books I consider it just. This is the book where people her age fight against Voldemort, people a year older than her plot to kill headmasters and have no problem trying to kill other people too ( Crabb and Goyle). I think JKR actually puts a lots of meaning in "You should have died for us, just as we would have died for you" words. ( yeah, to prevent questions I think Sirius did truly mean it, but that was not meant to talk only about Marauders IMO) And what do you mean Percy is not punished? Percy turned on his family, true. I do not remember though Percy betraying anybody as literally as Marietta did IMO. Did somebody suffer any damage because of Percy falling out with his family? I mean Molly cried a lot, they were upset, etc, but who suffered because of what Persy did otherwise? I cannot stand Percy, but I disagree that what he did deserves same thing as what Marietta did. Oh, and I think he was punished a plenty. His first joke killed his brother, literally. I think he is bound to have nightmares for life about it. Maybe he will learn to realise that if he learned to not take himself so seriously long time ago, that would have been better. Muz: And because she chose not to define Dark Magic, > because she chose to have Gryffindors do some pretty nasty things, she > is giving a pretty murky picture of what good and evil are in her > world. This isn't a world where good people are sometimes faced with > doing bad things for the right reasons (we live in one of those) - it's > a world where a bad thing is not a bad thing if a White Hat does it. > Ugly stuff done by White Hats is either played for comedy, or justified > without question. Alla: Eh, for **this** reader I have quite a good idea of good and evil in her world. And, ugly stuff by white hats justified without question? I think it is time for me to agree to disagree. Muz: For this reader, there's > a lot of hatred in these books. Alla: Lost of hatred? Definitely that time for me. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 03:05:50 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:05:50 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176810 > lizzyben: > > It looks like we're on the same page there. The spell is dark (or > not) regardless of who is casting it. Mike: Cool B-) > > Mike: > > But I do think it is well enough defined for me to "know it". And > > I trust my ability to understand that definition and not be ruled > > by my emotions when making this judgement call. YMMV > > > lizzyben: > > Yet you also say that you hope that the author is manipulating our > emotions - and that is her job. Mike: Yes, and I said this is not a judgement call that is ruled by my emotions. Whether JKR did a good job or not (NOT), *what* is Dark Magic is not an emotional call in my estimation. And if one lets it become an emotional judgement, then one will become confused by those emotions. "That one must not be Dark, Harry used it." Wrong, that's letting the Harry-is-Good filter color ones answer. BTW, I forgot to address your question on dark vs Dark. You had asked if this is me/us constructing something that JKR has not shown in canon. First, let me recommend zgirnius' post #176584, in part: ***** zgirnius: I disagree. The definition is clear. All things called jinxes, hexes, and curses are to differing degrees Dark, so are certain creatures we see the students learning about, as well as other things specifically identified as Dark (Horcruxes, Inferi-making, etc.). ****** That was a summary statement, she went into more detail up-post. This is what I read in the books. The outcome of some spells, though not always pleasant, did not rise to the level of Dark (Capital). It was a matter of degrees, as zgirnius said, and not that hard to guage objectively, imo. The point is that, as Adam said, JKR may not have defined Dark Magic very well, but we have been told many times that there is Dark Magic. And it isn't that hard to see which spells are mildly dark, for me. > lizzyben: > > What puzzles me is this dichotomy between what the author tells us > & what she shows us. That's what doesn't make sense. I mean, if we > truly are supposed to see Slyths as the bad ones, why is it that we > usually see Gryffindors beating *them* up instead of the other way > around? Why do we see more Gryffindor bullies than Slytherin > bullies? It's odd. Mike: Except the train rides home after books 4 & 5, I didn't see MCG getting beat up by HRH. (And no Gryff jinxed MCG on 5's ride home) And didn't I see Draco and Crabbe-n-Goyle bullying HRH on several train rides to Hogwarts? Like in books 1, 3, 4, & 6. I suppose the Slyths didn't land any jinxes, except 6 where Draco got his revenge with both a jinx and a stomp. > lizzyben: > > Well, that's exactly what I was trying to do - remove the "context" > from the canon & just report the events. "Context" is all the > imagery of "good, noble, wonderful Gryfs" vs. "evil, ugly, nasty > Slyths" that permeates the narrative. Mike: Not exactly. Saying Harry tried to Crucio a teacher, full stop, is removing a little bit of the motivation, wouldn't you say? Like, he just witnessed this teacher murdering the Headmaster. That's context. That the teacher was evil, ugly, etc. or that Harry was good, noble, etc. is not context. Harry's use of Sectumsempra was stupid, but he didn't know what the spell did and he used it to block Draco's Crucio. And Draco fired first in this scuffle. That is also context. But your report of the events, "This group regularly punched, jinxed, and cursed any student from House A who annoyed them" seems just as biased as what you railed against being a Gryff POV. "regularly" in the first three books? Other than Hermione's *one* slap of Draco have you got any other jinxes or curses HRH landed on MCG in the first three books? By my count, the answer is zero. Oh wait, we did have Harry tickling Draco during the dueling club. But then Draco hit first and last and with something a little less cute. > lizzyben: > I just took the same events & gave it a different spin - and > it's amazing how much more sinister House B students start to > look once you start referring to them as "Dark Wizards" "gang" > "dangerous" etc. It's all about the code words. Mike: Except if you ignore context and exaggerate those events then all you are doing is giving them spin. > lizzyben: > And also, I was pointing out that the Gryffindor students use an > awful lot of violence against other students. In fact, if you did a > comparison, I bet you'd find many more incidents of Gryffindor > students using "dark magic" against Slytherin students than the > reverse. And "dark magic" hexes are essentially violent spells of > different degrees. Why is that we so often see the "good guys" > using "dark magic"? Isn't that supposed to be a Slytherin thing? > Except it isn't. Mike: Since we spend 90% of the books following Harry, we were sure to see them using more spells of all sorts than we'd see from their Slytherin counterparts. BTW, where are all these dark spells used by Gryffs against the Slyth students? Do you mean the Trio, Fred and George against MCG in book 4? And might I counter with Draco's cursed neckless and poisoned mead in book 6? Which I believe almost killed two Gryffs. > lizzyben: > > > > Slytherin students are the "bad guys", and also the "whipping boys" > for the Gryffindor students. One role serves the other. If they > weren't so bad, it wouldn't be so much fun to beat them up. Mike: I'm going to shock you, because I essentially agree with you here and in the part I snipped. JKR does have the good guy Gryffs throwing out a lot of jinxes and hexes for laughs. I suppose she thought the adolescent, slap-stick humor would appeal to the younger male audience. Personally, I found Fred and George's one-liners much funnier than their magical pranks. Though those pranks often set up the one-liners. I do think that most of the semi-dark magic used by HRH was purposeful and justified. And, yeah, I wish she had put more jinxes and hexes from the Slyth students in the mix to justify the "Dark Arts" House motif she wants us to buy into. I suppose she thought having most of the DEs being former Slyths was enough. But considering the stage time imbalance in favor of the Gryffs, she could have done much more to back up her proposition. Mike From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Sep 7 03:15:50 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 19:15:50 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176811 On 2007, Sep 06, , at 14:44, Carol wrote: > Carol responds: > > I doubt that I'll change your mind, but here's why I think that > Imperius, even if it only causes a student to hop on one foot around > the room, is horrible. It's an invasion of the mind (admittedly, so > are Legilimency and Obliviate) and it robs a person of free will or > self-control. Another person is controlling you like a puppet, making > you do things you wouldn't normally do and don't want to do. There is no requirement with Imperio that the person wouldn't want to do what is being forced. > Barty > Crouch Sr. uses it for years to control his son and keep him from > running off to join Voldemort; Barty Jr. not only uses it on all his > students, ostensibly to teach them what it feels like but not really > teaching them how to resist it, but he later uses it to make Viktor > Krum Crucio Cedric Diggory. Mulciber, a DE who specialized in the > Imperius Curse, forced hundreds of people to do unspecified terrible > things, perhaps to murder Muggles or torture people. And none of these uses would be defensible in court. > The Imperius Curse can be used short-term, as Harry uses it against > Travers and the goblin Bogrod, but it can also be used for long-term > control, which makes it extremely dangerous. He used the curse on Travers to keep him safe, in a situation where he didn't have time to explain why it was needed. Yes, it is dangerous, but I consider this to be a defensible, forgiveable use of the curse. > (Wormtail was supposed to > be controlling Barty Crouch Sr. to make him do his work from home, but > Crouch escaped.) Long-term use of the curse, especially on people who > resist it, seems to result in brain damage, as we see with the "mad" > Mr. Crouch and with Broderick Bode (although in his case the damage > was compounded when he picked up the Prophecy orb, as he was commanded > to do by Lucius Malfoy, who had Imperiused him.) Both of these are offenses that I wouldn't see defensible in court. > Maybe its use is justified in a real emergency, just as AKing an > intruder about to attack your children might be justified (though > Stupefying or disarming the intruder would be better). But the > invasion of another person's mind, especially with the intent to > control that person and force him to act against his will and even his > conscience, seems to me a terrible thing. Even Stupefy could cause someone to die. So maybe it should be an Unforgiveable, too. You are causing a person to lose control of themselves - making them unable to defend themselves. If Harry had stunned Stan Shunpike when he was in the air on a broom, he rightly reasoned that that would have been equivalent to killing him. So, with your reasoning, since it is impeding his will and could be life-threatening, Stupefy should be an Unforgiveable, too. > Which is worse, the Cruciatus Curse that Krum cast against Cedric > Diggory or the Imperius Curse that caused him to Crucio Cedric against > his will? I'd say the Imperius Curse because it violated Krum's will > and caused the Crucio, which he would never have performed had he not > been forced to act against his will. I consider Krum innocent and > Crouch guilty of both crimes. I consider Crouch to be guilty of both crimes, too. The use of the Imperius in this case is NOT defensible. > Carol, noting that many of the crimes during VW1 were committed not by > Voldemort and his DEs but by people they had Imperio'd Using Imperio to force someone to commit a crime is not, IMO, defensible. Using it to force an action that has only a short term and non-injurious effect is defensible. If there are legitimate uses of the curse, then I don't consider it an Unforgiveable. To me, Unforgiveable means that there are NO legitimate uses of the curse. You're right, though. You didn't change my mind. :-) Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 7 03:24:02 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:24:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176812 > Alla: > > "Louie: Did mariettas pimply formation ever fade > J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a > traitor!" > > > Oh and was I glad that JKR defined pretty clear IMO what she > intended Marietta to be? Yes, I unashamedly was. > > I loathe a traitor indeed. Potioncat: I've come to think that JKR considers Snape a traitor as well. It would explain the horrible death he received at her pen. Granted, LV doesn't know, but JKR does. Wormtail, Marietta and Snape all received pretty wicked punishment. If I step way back, and look at DH without emotion, and consider the series based on all the books and on what interviews I've read---I can say "The author says she had this intention," and I can decide whether I think she made her case or not. I don't think she made it for Marietta and I'm annoyed that the Malfoys escape anything like punishment, yet this girl is disfigured for life. I also don't think JKR made the point for Harry being able to perform an Unforgivable but choosing not to later. If that was her intent (and there's a quote to that effect) I think she needed to show more of Harry's thoughts and feelings over it. Just my opinion of course. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 03:37:26 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 03:37:26 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176813 > Potioncat: > I've come to think that JKR considers Snape a traitor as well. It > would explain the horrible death he received at her pen. Granted, LV > doesn't know, but JKR does. Alla: Hmmm, believe it or not I was thinking about it before DH as to how JKR views Snape's treachery. I mean, after all, good side or not, he still betrayed his friends. I do not know, really. I do not want to say she does. Potioncat: > Wormtail, Marietta and Snape all received pretty wicked punishment. > > If I step way back, and look at DH without emotion, and consider the > series based on all the books and on what interviews I've read---I > can say "The author says she had this intention," and I can decide > whether I think she made her case or not. Alla: Of course and moreover many people are saying that author's intent should not matter at all. It does matter to me, but the only time when I choose to add it to interpretation is when I see the same thing in the text and I just unashamedly add in to be pleased that author did the same thing indeed that I thought she did. Nothing more nothing less. Whatever you see in the text is obviously equally valid as I see, regardless of whether I involve author's intent IMO. As I also said, I am torn on her interviews these days as to how much consider them ( not the statements of intent, but facts). Potioncat: > I don't think she made it for Marietta and I'm annoyed that the > Malfoys escape anything like punishment, yet this girl is disfigured > for life. Alla: Right, I think she made a pretty good case for Marietta here we disagree, but sure I am annoyed that Malfoys are not punished, I think they got a sweetest deal from all families actually. Criminal Lucius does not go to Azkaban, Draco has his family intact. NICE. They did not lost anybody and they get to enjoy life's pleasures all over again. I am annoyed, totally, but I can see how JKR wants to reward Narcissa's mother love, I guess. Still think Lucius needs to be in Azkaban for a longest time if you ask me. Potioncat: > I also don't think JKR made the point for Harry being able to perform > an Unforgivable but choosing not to later. If that was her intent > (and there's a quote to that effect) I think she needed to show more > of Harry's thoughts and feelings over it. > > Just my opinion of course. Alla: If she wanted to make that point, I missed it. I saw the point that Harry was unable to use AK like ever - from the beginning of book 7 and not that he was prepared to do it. I saw though that he could use other Unforigvables when angry, but not AK. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 7 04:17:06 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:17:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176814 > > Alla: > > Hmmm, believe it or not I was thinking about it before DH as to how > JKR views Snape's treachery. I mean, after all, good side or not, he > still betrayed his friends. > > I do not know, really. I do not want to say she does. Potioncat: Kneasy used to say that Snape's old friends were now his enemies and his old enemies were still his enemies--or something like that. And I have to wonder, once the Malfoys heard Harry's tale of where Snape's loyalties lay, what did they think of him? After all, he did protect Draco, and I don't think it was just because DD told him to. > > > Alla: > As I also said, I am torn on her interviews these days as to how > much consider them ( not the statements of intent, but facts). Potioncat: It helps to hear the interviews. Tone of voice, and body language speak volumes! But where I know she had a certain intent, I try to see it. I read Agatha Christie's autobiography. It was very interesting reading her comments about her readers' reactions to her stories. It makes me think twice about JKR's intent. But sometimes JKR's comments seem off the cuff, rather than thought out. It's as if she feels she has to have an answer for every question. > Alla: > > I saw though that he could use other Unforigvables when angry, but > not AK. Potioncat: It had to do with the Cruciatus. And right now I'm not sure if I read her comment or if I read someone else saying they had read it. As much as McGonagall protested over Harry's fighting Draco because of a comment, I cannot understand why she didn't at least express shock at his use of Cruciatus. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 05:06:56 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 05:06:56 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709061837g657fd05fr65b6cf57e4f5a96@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176815 > Debbie: > But Christianity (at least my tradition) teaches that no one is worthy. The > faithful are not devoid of sin, but fail to meet expectations every day. > Perhaps that was JKR's point in making Harry use the Cruciatus Curse. He is > not the Jesus of the Potterverse. Harry is a human being with human > temptations, to which he sometimes succumbs. > > In other words, everyone needs repentance. Slytherins have more > temptations, but everyone is tempted. > Prep0strus: You're right, when it comes to theology, but I still think JKR's point in showing us that the Baron was a murderer was to continue to hit home the idea that Slytherins are bad. Every little thing can be argued and looked at in a variety of ways, but all the little pieces add up to something. I didn't mean it as a very big point, but it's not just a random thing that it's the Baron and not the Friar that was the murderer. > Debbie: Whether you think the Slytherins deserve what they get depends on > your views on vengeance and vigilante justice. In my code of justice, we > don't hex people because they're bad people, for the same reason that our > justice system doesn't incarcerate people because they're bad and they're > going to harm us if we don't. > > Slytherins have a bad rap as a group, so I'm not surprised their motto seems > to be that the best defense is a good offense. In the long run, though, > this will just beget more violence, which is exactly what we saw in the > books. Draco Malfoy went from trying to get the Trio punished in PS/SS for > being out of bounds to ethnic slurs in CoS to bearing false witness against > Buckbeak in PoA and eventually to scheming to kill the Headmaster in HBP. > And in between we had episodes like the train stomp in GoF. Not even an eye > for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, but a stomp for a threat. > > In the end, I don't think the Gryffindors are better than the Slytherins. > It's their circumstances that are different. Prep0strus: I don't believe much in vigilante justice or vengeance much in real life... but in the books, it makes for some cathartic kind of fun. Though often, it's not just tit for tat, but heat of the moment or self defense. And while your theory on a good offense is interesting, i don't think it really holds up. First, I don't think they have a 'bad rap'. that implies it isn't earned, and I think JKR has showed us that it is very much earned. Which is why I consider them her whipping boys, not the Griffindors'. Because she dumps on them, but in the books, she does not give us nearly enough examples of goodness to make us think there is a possibility that they are equals in any way. They are bad, and it is only through the subversive reading, the assumption of facts not in evidence, and a general sympathy for characters we are told again and again are bad (while being shown some actions that are equivalent by 'good guys') that allows them to be read otherwise. Draco trying to get the group in trouble, I'll accept. I can easily see Ron & Harry trying to do the same thing... though, through the prism of the books, I think harry would be assuming that Draco was trying to do something bad (the way he was in HBP), and also, that Harry was right (the way he was in HBP), while Draco would simply be trying to get them in trouble, not actually wondering about or caring what their reasons are. Ethnic slurs are the red flag JKR is giving us that he's a bad seed. That would not be done by the good guys, period. Draco's a jerk. Also, how is this any kind of 'offense' that serves him? How is it anything but sheer bigoted nastiness? Buckbeak? Neville? Again, i don't see the argument that he's just jumping the gun. Buckbeak is an innocent animal. Draco deliberately ignored the rules, and did so by acting in a way that would have been horrible and inappropriate even if he WASN'T warned. Then he lied, to cause the death of a creature, and he had no reason other than his own amusement. He had no reason to expect anything bad to happen to him because of Buckbeak. Buckbeak isn't a griffindor. Buckbeak is just another clear example of how horrible Draco is. Trying to kill the headmaster... i mean, one could get into how much worse murder is, of course, but we saw a lot more to that story. How he was pressured into it, how pride and ambition led into fear and control... in its way, it's the most understandable of his actions. And the subplot made HBP more interesting. Which is why the dropping of the ball on his story in DH is such a travesty, IMO. And the train stomp... by that point, these boys were definitely enemies. But the cruelty Draco displays... I don't think we'd see that from our guys. Maybe we would. I dunno. But it seems quite brutal. And I don't really think the argument can be made that Griffindors and Slytherins are two sides of the same coin, or that it's all about perspective. I think JKR did all she could to show us that that wasn't the case. Griffindors aren't perfect, but Slytherins are barely human. And while no one may be without fault, and everyone needs some redemption, it is not the same place as where Slytherins exist. To rise from their innate evil and squalor, they must spend an eternity in chains, they must spy for their former masters and die gruesomely. JKR could have given us good, admirable, nice, fun Slytherins. She didn't. Griffindors aren't perfect, but they just don't come close to Slytherins in imperfection, imo. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Fri Sep 7 06:04:08 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:04:08 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176816 On 2007, Sep 06, , at 14:44, Carol wrote: > But the > invasion of another person's mind, especially with the intent to > control that person and force him to act against his will and even his > conscience, seems to me a terrible thing. This would also be true of Obliviate and modifying someone's memory. In fact, erasing memories is, to me, much more invasive than Imperio. You are erasing part of that person's LIFE - and you are giving them no choice in the matter. Perhaps Obliviate should also be an Unforgiveable. And as for Wingardium Leviosa being less invasive than Imperio: you are still causing someone to move against their will. And, in case of the muggles who were suspended in the air above the crowd at the Quidditch World Cup, they were caused acute embarrassment and shame. Maybe Wingardium Leviosa should be an Unforgiveable, too, when applied to people. I think there are plenty of examples of simple spells being used in manners that are unacceptable. The question is what really makes something Unforgiveable? To me, it is not as important that the spell is one JKR has chosen to call Unforgiveable, but rather whether the spell is used in an inappropriate manner. I would say that the use of the spell (whatever spell) is Unforgiveable if it causes damage to the person or to others; if it involves a matter of conscience that the person would regret if s/he had consciously performed the act without the spell; if the person was rendered incapable of making other informed, conscious decisions; if the spell's effects were long lived or permanent. By that reasoning, Hermione's modification of her parents memories is also Unforgiveable. She does it with the best of intentions, but she doesn't give them a choice, the effect would have been permanent had she died, and she robbed them of one of the most important part of their lives - their daughter. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kennclark at btinternet.com Fri Sep 7 07:16:27 2007 From: kennclark at btinternet.com (Kenneth Clark) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 07:16:27 -0000 Subject: harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176817 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jbmwfb69" wrote: > > In book 7 Harry's grown up and shows true courage. Who does he get it > from, his mother or father? > > Jacob > Ken says: You think courage is hereditary? Ken Clark From rexsteel009 at yahoo.co.uk Fri Sep 7 04:00:45 2007 From: rexsteel009 at yahoo.co.uk (rexsteel009) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 04:00:45 -0000 Subject: Nineteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176818 Think about it, the scene 19 years later is on September first, Harry's birthday is on 31st July, so when the scene takes place it is 19 years and 3 or 4 months. Those months are crucial because after the events of the penultimate chapter Harry's birthday comes around and he turns 18, then from September first the 19 years go by and when we see him at the station he is 37 years old. rexsteel009 From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 09:16:20 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 09:16:20 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176819 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "muscatel1988" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" > wrote: > > I had argued in the past that JKR intended Marietta to be mini > > Pettigrew of the sort - not AS serious, but in essense the same. I > > happen to think that it is so. Do I think Pettigrew deserved what > he > > got? Most definitely. Same with Marietta for me. I do not buy that > > JKR intended for DA to be kids' game. > > Mus responds: > > But Pettigrew was an adult. Marietta, in OotP, was not. > I'm not saying that Marietta was right. I'm saying that we're given > a portrait of a teenager who makes the wrong choice - albeit one her > mother would have wanted her to make - and gets scarred for life by > Hermione. It's a pretty mean way to treat a child. Renee: In fact, Marietta is older than Hermione, being in the year above her. That means she was sixteen at the start of OotP and could very well have turned seventeen before the incident took place (it was some time after Christmas). Hardly a child, in terms of the Wizarding World. And even if she was a child at the time - well, she gets a very much better treatment than Pettigrew. And scarred for life? JKR says she had a few scars left at the end. I know several people in RL with visible acne scars. They don't look particularly bad and lead perfectly normal lives. Some people seem to be suggesting that Marietta was doomed to live unhappily ever after, which IMO is really overdone. (She doesn't even have to cope with a bad conscience, as she was obliviated.) I think the scars she was left with are no big deal. Renee From salilouisa at googlemail.com Fri Sep 7 11:31:36 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 12:31:36 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176820 > > zgirnius: > > For most of DH, Harry is 18. 19 years later, on Sept. 1, the day we > are > > shown, he is 37. This is the age Snape, Lupin, and Peter were, and > > Lily, James, and Sirius would have been, had they all been alive in > DH. > > > > My thought for why it was 19. > > Jenni from Alabama responds: > > When did Harry have another birthday after leaving the Burrow > and 'hiding out' with Ron and Hermione? Geoff: He doesn't. This is either suspect Maths - again! - or not reading canon. We already know that Harry was 11 in July 1991 and that DH is set during the academic year 1997/98 when Harry should have been in the Second Year Sixth had he returned to Hogwarts. Canon states: 'Yaxley waited but Voldemort did not speak, so he went on. "Dawlish, the Auror, let slip that Potter will not be moved until the thirtieth, the night before the boy turns seventeen."' (DH "The Dark Lord Ascending" p,11 UK edition) This is in the summer holiday between the HBP year and the next Autumn term. We know that the Trio were at Godric's Hollow just before Christmas so the final confrontations were in 1998 before he reached 18. Sali: He doesn't turn 18 in DH, but he does have an extra birthday which makes him 37 in the epilogue. At the end of the last chapter he is 17. Plus 19 years makes him 36 in the summer before the epilogue (early summer 2017?). He then has a birthday between the exact 19 years on from the end of the last chapter and the epilogue which takes place September that year. Sali, who has checked and re-checked her maths but is still terrified of it being wrong? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 7 13:54:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 13:54:47 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176821 Hermione. It's a pretty mean way to treat a child. > > Renee: > In fact, Marietta is older than Hermione, being in the year above her. > That means she was sixteen at the start of OotP and could very well > have turned seventeen before the incident took place (it was some time > after Christmas). Hardly a child, in terms of the Wizarding World. And > even if she was a child at the time - well, she gets a very much > better treatment than Pettigrew. > > And scarred for life? JKR says she had a few scars left at the end. I > know several people in RL with visible acne scars. They don't look > particularly bad and lead perfectly normal lives. Some people seem to > be suggesting that Marietta was doomed to live unhappily ever after, > which IMO is really overdone. (She doesn't even have to cope with a > bad conscience, as she was obliviated.) I think the scars she was left > with are no big deal. Magpie: Just a factual point, but that probably makes her a few months older than Hermione at most. Hermione is also be 16 in OotP. As for acne scars being no big deal, well, that's nice of you to decide for someone else, but I think it is a big deal when they're given to you by somebody else in a situation set up by the other person's flaws as much as your own. JKR doesn't even inflict regular acne on her good guys, so I hardly think the kind that scars and requires lots of covering up is not a big deal in her universe (or in any other). Whether acne scars are livable and whether it's okay to give someone facial scars are two different things. And I don't think her not having to live with remorse is any plus for her--for all you know any remorse she might have had would be completely dried up by that OTT punishment. prep0sterous: Buckbeak is an innocent animal. Draco deliberately ignored the rules, and did so by acting in a way that would have been horrible and inappropriate even if he WASN'T warned. Then he lied, to cause the death of a creature, and he had no reason other than his own amusement. He had no reason to expect anything bad to happen to him because of Buckbeak. Buckbeak isn't a griffindor. Buckbeak is just another clear example of how horrible Draco is. Magpie: Even while basically disagreeing with this view of Draco's actions with Buckbeak, I unfortunately do agree this is how it's supposed to come across and agree with your general point of his being the author's whipping boy. He's set up for pleasure in his nastiness all around--we get to cheer when he gets attacked by Buckbeak (who is not a Gryffindor so Draco has no reason to pre-emptively fear him, but certainly does act the part of the Gryffindor in this scene by simply smacking Draco down because of an insulting remark just as Hermione, Fred, George, Ron and Harry do). Then we get to boo and hiss as he rejoices in the idea of Hagrid's pet being punished--he never behaves in a way that lets us sympathize with his desire for revenge against Buckbeak the way we are encouraged to sympathize with the Gryffindor's desire for revenge against...anybody. And then more stuff is added and not challenged, like the idea that he's "deliberately" not following the rules--for what reason, I don't know--and that he's bearing false witness even though there doesn't seem to be any reason for him to do so. The only lying we actually see him doing is playing up the paing of his injury after it's cared for. Not to mention that Buckbeak is an "innocent animal" even though Buckbeak was actually a sentient being who simply slashed somebody because they insulted him. It's a clever bait and switch, that, the way he can be both. It's set up all around to make Draco mostly a hate object. It takes a classic situation of kids' lit--trying to protect a beloved animal from being put down--and carefully removes all the usual elements of injustice by making the first attack a Draco-smackdown in itself. Because it's Draco, because he's so awful, there's never any reason to look at anything else going on, and any other possible mistakes are obscured by his. Then there's Draco's odd storyline, for me, in the last two books, where he's put through hell and "grows up a lot" according to the author, only to be more of a child than ever in the last book who, no matter how many times we're shown he recognizes his previous thoughts about Voldemort were wrong and he's being punished for them, still can't take any definitively good actions *at all.* The best he can do to help himself is not actually identify the Trio when they're in front of him (he doesn't even lie and say it isn't them). Yet he somehow can still wander into the RoR at the end when he's needed for the plot, on a mission to do the very thing we were shown earlier he didn't want to do--did he just stay behind to hide and when Crabbe and Goyle saw the Trio in front of them he went along? Who knows? The main point is there's only so much Draco can change from his essential repulsiveness. (And I think he's like all Slytherins in this. We can squint and hope for more in them, but it's not played out for us dramatically.) This is important, imo, because Draco is *the* student of Harry's generation that we know. He starts out with completely wrong-headed views, gets punished for them over and over, yet even when the punishment reaches the point where he couldn't possibly not get that supporting Voldemort is wrong (because he's living in the very nightmare he's dreamed about), he can't actually change. He's not Edmund of Narnia who becomes a more thoughtful man than Peter for having been the traitor (granted he also doesn't have anybody lending a hand to help him, but he probably doesn't deserve it and it wouldn't help anyway). He pretty much remains a bad guy, just not bad enough to require death. (The best we can say about him seems to be that he really doesn't like cruelty and violence, though even that might not be too good of a thing, I don't know.) He's actually capable of real perseverance and even some courage at times, but sometimes it seems like that's only because it's needed for the plot, and that the author didn't even intend it to be seen as such. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 14:05:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:05:21 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew WAS: Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176822 > Renee: > In fact, Marietta is older than Hermione, being in the year above her. > That means she was sixteen at the start of OotP and could very well > have turned seventeen before the incident took place (it was some time > after Christmas). Hardly a child, in terms of the Wizarding World. And > even if she was a child at the time - well, she gets a very much > better treatment than Pettigrew. Alla: I just realised that I see some additional similarities between Pettigrew and Marietta. Once when I attempted to rather clumsily defend him (as intellectual exercise) I think I was saying that maybe his mother was threatened too. I mean, we know that the finger was delivered to his mother, JKR made a point of it. And we know that Marietta's mother works in the ministry. But we do **not** know that Marietta's mother life or limb or even job security was somehow threatened, we are just assuming it. Just as we do **not** know that Pettigrew's mother was tortured by Voldemort or even threatened. We just assume it or I did in any event. And didn't Peter in the Shack makes allusions to him being supposedly tortured by Voldemort? I mean, it is not clear, but I thought it could be read that way. Just as the allusions are made that Umbridge forcefully interrogated Marietta, except in both case it is not supported IMO. I mean, in TMTMNBN it was done so clearly, so easily - show Umbridge feeding veritaserum and voola. JKR opted not to do anything of the sort. I am also fascinated that both Pettigrew and Marietta did not just delivered information on other people, they delivered information about their best friends. I mean, Cho *was* there after all, member of the DA as everybody else. Did Marietta care in the slightest? I did not seem to notice. It is also interesting that Pettigrew was at best **three** years older than Marietta when he started his betrayal, so they are quite close in age. Thanks by the way for reminding that Marietta was not even fifteen at the time, I completely had in my mind for the longest time that she was fifteen. I also for some reason still vaguely remember a french or italian movie I watched long time ago. Do not ask me details or even complete plot. It was a **very** long time ago. But it was about World War II and I remember that at the end they executed a sixteen or seventeen year old for treason during the war. I think ( not sure) it was after the war even, the execution I mean. I do not even remember what he did exactly - just delivered information or something else. What I do remember is that he came back to face punishment, that he was really remorseful, I think, not sure that he tried to help somehow - to correct what he did. He was executed anyways. I cried, but his guy's torment and remorse was shown really convincingly. I saw no sign of torment with Marietta. IMO of course. Renee: > And scarred for life? JKR says she had a few scars left at the end. I > know several people in RL with visible acne scars. They don't look > particularly bad and lead perfectly normal lives. Alla: I know such person really really well. JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 7 14:10:16 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:10:16 -0000 Subject: Fred and George and Karma Re: Harry as Frodo or not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176823 Pippin: > (I'm a bit bewildered by the assertion that no karmic justice falls on > Fred and George for Montague. Last I looked, Fred was dead and > George was never going to be the same.) Magpie: Last I looked, it wasn't karmic at all. Fred dies a hero killed by DEs and George loses his brothers and an ear to same. For it to come across as karma it has to be tied to their own actions and be ironic in some way. It's not--they're just heroes. What they did to Montague is not considered a bad thing at all as far as I can see. Even everything that happened in HBP is dealt with with an off-hand, "Have to talk to the Twins about who they're selling their products too." Now that the series is over even that reads like a plot point, not a lesson. -m From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 14:48:46 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:48:46 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176824 > Magpie: > Even while basically disagreeing with this view of Draco's actions > with Buckbeak, I unfortunately do agree this is how it's supposed to > come across and agree with your general point of his being the > author's whipping boy. He's set up for pleasure in his nastiness all > around--we get to cheer when he gets attacked by Buckbeak (who is > not a Gryffindor so Draco has no reason to pre-emptively fear him, > but certainly does act the part of the Gryffindor in this scene by > simply smacking Draco down because of an insulting remark just as > Hermione, Fred, George, Ron and Harry do). Then we get to boo and > hiss as he rejoices in the idea of Hagrid's pet being punished--he > never behaves in a way that lets us sympathize with his desire for > revenge against Buckbeak the way we are encouraged to sympathize > with the Gryffindor's desire for revenge against...anybody. And then > more stuff is added and not challenged, like the idea that > he's "deliberately" not following the rules--for what reason, I > don't know--and that he's bearing false witness even though there > doesn't seem to be any reason for him to do so. The only lying we > actually see him doing is playing up the paing of his injury after > it's cared for. Not to mention that Buckbeak is an "innocent animal" > even though Buckbeak was actually a sentient being who simply > slashed somebody because they insulted him. It's a clever bait and > switch, that, the way he can be both. Prep0strus: I am certainly disappointed in Draco's storyline - mostly, it's the time devoted to him in HBP, and the big deal that is made about Dumbledore not wanting him to be the one who kills him, that makes me think he will earn a true reversal - that we'll see a redemption arc, like Snape's, but within the time period of the story. Which, to me, would have been more interesting than Snape. Something akin to what we saw with Dudley, but more meaningful. I don't think I would have wound up liking Draco anymore than I like Snape, but I would have enjoyed that arc. I found everything about Draco in DH to be bizarre and deeply unsatisfying. But to get to what you were saying here... buckbeak is not a sentient being, or simply smacking down draco for an insulting remark. "Now, firs' thing yeh gotta know abou' hippogriffs is, they're proud," said Hagrid. "Easily offended, hippogriffs are. Don't never insult one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do." "yeh always wait fer the hippogriff ter make the firs' move," Hagrid continued. "it's polite, see? Yeh walk toward him, and yeh bow, an' yeh wait. if he bows back, hey're allowed ter touch him. If he doesn' bow, then get away from him sharpish, 'cause those talons hurt." I know it's silly, because it's assuming they understand human words, but there is often a much more muddled view of sentience vs nonsentience in fantasy. I had no doubts when I was reading this that Hagrid was telling the kids the 'rules' of dealing with hippogriffs. These are wild animals, but wild animals that live by a code. They are clearly dangerous-looking; the children are afraid of them until Harry finds some success. I don't think the fact that Buckbeak responds to an insult makes him sentient or equivalently morally culpable to humans. They are fantasy animals, that live within the confines of their rules. As kids who live in a fantasy world that contains many more dangers than our world. Also, a certain amount of respect is required with any animal, not just a fantasy one. If I were working with a dangerous animal, and told go slow, speak softly, and watch them carefully for signs of aggression, I would do so. If I were warned that loud noises or fast movements could agitate the animal, I would avoid them. I pay attention when I know I will be working with something that could hurt me. Draco's behavior is sheer stupidity. And then, it's not just carelessness. JKR makes it clear by not having him mistakenly break a rule - he deliberately aims an insult at him. Knowing human behavior, and animal behavior, I think it's quite likely that a real life animal might respond the same way - as the body posture and tone of Draco's voice would likely incur the same result, even without the meaning of the words. But as a magical being, we don't have to wonder - we know the rules for dealing with hippogriffs. Treating them with respect is the same as the needing to be virginal or telling the truth with a unicorn that is contained in many stories. It doesn't necessarily make them sentient. It's just part of their mythos. Draco ignores danger, ignores the rules, and is rude for no purpose whatsoever towards an innocent animal that has been treating him well. He then knows that he has behaved inappropriately, lies about the extent of his injuries, and attempts to get an animal killed for his own amusement. And for all the Slytherin supporters out there... why don't you try imagining what would happen if someone deliberately and maliciously ignored instructions in Snape's class? Would they not be expected to suffer the consequences? Even goodhearted attempts and failures could lead to dire consequences, as Neville's toad would attest to (despite some posters' personal beliefs that Snape wouldn't have actually done anything to him). But if Snape had told the kids to talk kindly to the potion, and harry was in a foul mood and muttered insults into his, and wound up disfigured, I think we'd see quite a defense of harry the impetuous ignoring Professor Snape. Draco ignored Prof. Hagrid. He was stupid in the extreme, and nasty for no reason. He tried to get a creature which was acting according to its nature killed. The entire episode is one of the more sickening in the HP books, especially seeing the sick pleasure the Slytherins get out of the idea that buckbeak will be put down. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 7 15:38:19 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 15:38:19 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176825 > Prep0strus: > buckbeak is not a sentient being, or simply smacking down draco for an > insulting remark. > > "Now, firs' thing yeh gotta know abou' hippogriffs is, they're proud," > said Hagrid. "Easily offended, hippogriffs are. Don't never insult > one, 'cause it might be the last thing yeh do." > > "yeh always wait fer the hippogriff ter make the firs' move," Hagrid > continued. "it's polite, see? Yeh walk toward him, and yeh bow, an' > yeh wait. if he bows back, hey're allowed ter touch him. If he > doesn' bow, then get away from him sharpish, 'cause those talons hurt." > > I know it's silly, because it's assuming they understand human words, > but there is often a much more muddled view of sentience vs > nonsentience in fantasy. Magpie: By "muddling" the view of sentience JKR gets to have it both ways. Animals can't understand an insult. Buckbeak is anthropomorphized in order to have him react to an insult *exactly* the way any human would--only with greater strength because he's an animal. Further stacking the deck, this is described as being an "instinct" for the animal. So we get this highly satisfying mixture where Draco's behavior-- which is perfectly acceptable in dealing with an animal, actually, so much so that I believe in the movie it's *Hagrid* who calls Buckbeak some kind of brute while Draco is made to do things that would actually provoke an animal--gets him a smackdown from an animal. It's a comment on his personality and his rudeness, just like it is when Hermione smacks him later. How can the scene be read any other way than a "ha ha" when Draco's insult earns him a smack? Iow, Buckbeak is an animal in his own universe, but his "instincts" recreate the same behavior we would see in people. With the added perk that "even animals" can see how much Draco sucks. And yet far from that being that, a tit for tat, it's the start of a second "Draco is a monstrous child!" storyline with even more Gryffindor victims, with Buckbeak now sliding easily into the role of Petey the Pup Who Never Hurt Nobody, Mister while Draco cackles over slitting his throat. prep0sterous: > If I were working with a dangerous animal, and told go slow, speak > softly, and watch them carefully for signs of aggression, I would do > so. If I were warned that loud noises or fast movements could agitate > the animal, I would avoid them. I pay attention when I know I will be > working with something that could hurt me. Draco's behavior is sheer > stupidity. Magpie: Well, so is Hagrid's. I've had this argument many times, and I will never understand see Hagrid as anything like these hypothetical teachers who run incredibly responsible classes. There's no indication that Draco isn't watching the animal for signs of aggression. He hasn't been warned about loud noises or fast movements. He's been taught to bow etc., which he does, and he quite possibly didn't hear the line "Hyppogriffs are proud so don't insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do." (Obviously a ridiculous way of introducing the danger to a class full of kids.) With all the attention paid to Draco's cowardice, how is it that he's also reckless enough to tease a wild animal? Or is it just that he can be self-contradictory as long as he's bad in every way? prep0sterous: And then, it's not just carelessness. JKR makes it clear > by not having him mistakenly break a rule - he deliberately aims an > insult at him. Knowing human behavior, and animal behavior, I think > it's quite likely that a real life animal might respond the same way - > as the body posture and tone of Draco's voice would likely incur the > same result, even without the meaning of the words. Magpie: Actually, JKR has Harry look over and see Draco whispering after Hagrid says the thing about insults, which absolutely indicates that he might not be breaking that rule on purpose. Which I'll give her credit for, because like I said above, it makes far less sense to suggest that the kid she loves to show as a big coward has just decided to pick a fight with a wild animal. He's cockily showing off once he's done what he thinks he's supposed to do--"knew this couldn't be hard if Potter could do it." D'oh! prep0sterous: > And for all the Slytherin supporters out there... why don't you try > imagining what would happen if someone deliberately and maliciously > ignored instructions in Snape's class? Would they not be expected to > suffer the consequences? Magpie: Gee, you mean like throwing a firecracker in a cauldron? I believe it was Crabbe and Goyle that suffered the consequences then. No big deal. But to answer your question, of course they'd suffer the consequences. Draco does here. I didn't disagree that Draco suffered the consequences of his own actions-that's why Buckbeak slashed him. That's also why he actually learns to listen in class later--listen very carefully because he knows not to trust Hagrid to really put across the danger accurately. I'm also saying that so did Hagrid--only his mistakes, carelessness and recklessness are palmed onto Draco as well. Who can bear to criticize Hagrid when he's so sad over Buckbeak? And Draco's just so dreadful how could any teacher possibly handle him? A 13-year-old boy with 10 minutes worth of CoMC behind him who's known to insult people constantly? And meanwhile here's Hagrid, any of whose mistakes a Slytherin-supporter could possibly see is totally explained by the fact it was his first day and he wasn't totally experienced and he was so enthusiastic! It's not his job to pre-empt adolescent cockiness and stupidity, you know. He's just a teacher! prep0sterous: But if Snape had told the kids to talk kindly to > the potion, and harry was in a foul mood and muttered insults into > his, and wound up disfigured, I think we'd see quite a defense of > harry the impetuous ignoring Professor Snape. Magpie: Nope, if it were me I'd hope I'd merely describe what I saw. If Harry were muttering insults into his potion after not listening much to Snape I'd say--well, Harry muttered insults after not listening, which is exactly what I say for Draco. Only I'd be in Harry's pov and that would be sympathetic to Harry, wouldn't it? There's plenty of times Harry gets potions wrong, and I can't remember a single time the narrator seemed to encourage me to get satisfaction at Harry getting it wrong. No, Harry's quite frequent times of not listening in class or being careless are portrayed as normal teenaged behavior. (Even when he goes through the year giving himself an unfair advantage I'm kind of rooting for him and he suffers nothing like this kind of results from it.) In my experience it's really only in discussing this incident that not listening in class or doing something wrong is *deserving* of excessive punishment. With Neville, for instance, he gets stuff wrong and stuff blows up, but I would say it's portrayed as an honest mistake. Neville's own mistake for which he suffers, but Snape's yelling at him about it is I think portrayed (though not judged by some readers) as overkill in ways Draco's injury is not. Draco deserves it. Neville deserves a little patience. Draco made a deliberate mistake. Neville made an honest mistake. Even though they both could have basically done the same thing. Kids make mistakes. prep0sterous: > The entire episode is one of the more sickening in the HP books, > especially seeing the sick pleasure the Slytherins get out of the idea > that buckbeak will be put down. Magpie: Funny, because I also find it one of the more sickening in the HP books, but for a slightly different reason. The Slytherins getting pleasure in Buckbeak being put down is one, but I'm also creeped out by Slytherin's being set up to do that in the first place. The author uses an animal created for the purpose of attacking him because he "deserves it" and then uses it as a springboard for "Please Don't Shoot My Dog!" casting the equally irresponsible teacher as the victim. Because Hagrid's not giving a damn about people getting hurt is kind of cute while the Slytherin's is clearly sick. It's all about whipping up that feeling about the Slytherins, isn't it. It's like the exact kind of sadistic attitude so disgusting in the Slytherins permeates the book and is given a totally righteous spin, which is why PoA is one of my least favorite books despite the great revelations in the Shack. -m From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 16:06:42 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:06:42 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176826 > Magpie: > The > best he can do to help himself is not actually identify the Trio > when they're in front of him (he doesn't even lie and say it isn't > them). Yet he somehow can still wander into the RoR at the end when > he's needed for the plot, on a mission to do the very thing we were > shown earlier he didn't want to do--did he just stay behind to hide > and when Crabbe and Goyle saw the Trio in front of them he went > along? Who knows? The main point is there's only so much Draco can > change from his essential repulsiveness. (And I think he's like all > Slytherins in this. We can squint and hope for more in them, but > it's not played out for us dramatically.) zgirnius: Apparently your idea of dramatic, and mine, differ...dramatically. In "The Battle of Hogwarts", the images of Draco dragging the unconscious Goyle away from the oncoming fire, and later, sitting high on the pile of desks with his arms wrapped protectively around his friend, were plenty dramatic enough for me. And the actions thus dramatically described, were good. They just weren't 'for the good side', which is a totally different thing. Goyle may be an idiot, he may be a Dark Wizard and Death Eater (unclear), but he is also a human being anbd Draco's friend, and trying to rescue him was an unambiguously good action. You thought, and I did too, that Rowling might bring Draco over to 'the good guys'. She didn't, apparently her plan was more to just show the goodness and humanity in Draco, which she did do. I actually like that just fine, it is very real to me. Even on the 'bad side' of RL conflicts, there are people capable of good, and switching sides is not their only way of showing it. She also provided excellent plot reasons which excuse Draco's 'failure' to switch sides openly and dramatically. His parents were, essentially, hostages. I thought this was made quite plain. (For example, by the conversation of Lucius and Voldemort in "The Elder Wand"). That any actions he did take for the 'good side' were ambiguous makes perfect sense in light of that fact. (Like the failure to recognize Ron and Hermione you mention, or his attempts to talk Crabbe out of killing Harry in the RoR). She did not set up the same dilemma for any of the 'good guys' (unless you count Xenophilius, a guy we first met in the course of DH, so I would not say he is one). And Xenophilius's choice is to cave to pressue in the hopes that Luna will live and be returned to him. Harry understands Xenophilius's action and even tries to keep him out of trouble with the Death Eaters. No 'good guy' of long standing is forced to sacrifice the life of a loved one for the cause, and the impossible situation this would be is highlighted by at least two additional relationships I can think of. This is why Harry has to give up Ginny, that is the fear he has, that she would be used against him. And this is why Rowling has Augusta Longbottom escape the Death Eaters - she does not want to put Neville in that bind, because she has heroic plans for him. I think, to her, choosing something over a loved one is nearly unthinkable, not something she would require of anyone, including Draco. (I would point out, much the same applies to many of the Slytherin students who have been criticized for leaving the battle. Aberforth points out that they could have been held hostage. The logical turnaround, is that their parents *were* hostage, because it is clear that *Voldemort* would punish parents for the actions of their children.) From sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 16:17:20 2007 From: sweetophelia4u at yahoo.com (Dondee Gorski) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:17:20 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: <914434.26303.qm@web32505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176827 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, -jme- wrote: > It was stated in the book that when the secret keeper dies, all those that know of the "secret" becomes the secret-keeper right? Like what had happened with Grimmauld Place. The trio did still use it, though at greater risk with the greater number of secret keepers. But it still is, for all intents and purposes, hidden and un-plottable. > > And so I am left with the question, what about Godric's Hollow? If Peter Pettigrew as the Secret-Keeper, how was it possible that Hermione and Harry was able to see the ruins of the cottage? For that matter, how were the "tourists" able to see the cottage and leave those messages? Pettigrew was still alive, so it stands to reason, the Potter Place at Godric's Hollow should still be unplottable right? Dondee: The way I understand it, James and Lily's FC was broken when they died because the charm was on them and not Godric's Hollow. The other FC is on Grimmauld Place and the Order. This makes me wonder that if the Order was destroyed or disbanded the charm would lift, or if #12 was damaged in such a way that it could no longer shelter the Order that it would become visible. Cheers, Dondee From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 16:28:00 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:28:00 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176828 Laura: To me, Unforgiveable means that there are > NO legitimate uses of the curse. Lisa: To the wizarding world, though, that's exactly how they view Imperio, which is why they've deemed it Unforgiveable, as there are other spells to use in its place. Lisa From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 16:45:13 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 16:45:13 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176829 "Carol" wrote: > we're talking about a group of kids > who were for the most part thwarting > a teacher who refused to teach them > practical defensive skills. We're talking about a teacher more than willing to use torture and even death as a punishment, and please don't tell me Marietta didn't know that, if she didn't understand what sort of person that teacher was she was indeed a moral imbecile. And please don't tell me it was all just kids stuff, this "group of kids" held their own against a gang of murderous Death Eaters who outnumbered them 2 to 1. > Most of them did not know or believe > that Voldemort was back. I don't believe that's true at all, I don't believe most of them would allow themselves to be led by someone they thought was a liar, and if they did think Harry was a liar then that paints them in a even more unflattering light. > The DA was not the French resistance. Why? Because one was in France and one was in Scotland? > her mistakes are quite understandable. Yes but understandable is not the same as forgivable. Marietta knew both Harry and Professor Umbrage quite well, she either thought Umbrage was the better person than Harry or she knew Harry was better but didn't care; either way Marietta was despicable. > I still say that Hermione was less than > honest in presenting her reasons for > having the students sign the parchment As certainly as night follows day whenever one of the good guys manages to do something especially effective somebody will yell "that's immoral". If JKR had acted on one tenth of all those goody two shoes complaints Harry and all his friends would have been dead about 4 books ago. Being moral does not mean you must also be stupid, if Hermione acted in a way you seem to think she should she would be stupid. > It would have been best all around > if Marietta had refused to sign > and walked away And right after that Marietta would have walked straight to Umbrage and told her everything. Hermione would be STUPID to let that happen. But Marietta did sign, she did promised not to tell anyone; she broke her promise and there are consequences for that. > Of course, there are consequences for > being wrong and making mistakes but > that's different from deliberately > doing wrong. Why? Most of the evil in the world is caused by people who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing. There is no more overrated virtue than sincerity! Eggplant From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Sep 7 17:23:52 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 17:23:52 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176830 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > We're talking about a teacher more than willing to use torture and > even death as a punishment, and please don't tell me Marietta didn't > know that, if she didn't understand what sort of person that teacher > was she was indeed a moral imbecile. Mus is puzzled: At the time that Marietta divulged all, how did she know this? Harry and the reader know that Umbridge is willing to use torture, but he is rather unwilling to tell even Ron and Hermione. Does he tell the rest of the DA? If he does, then I can't find it, though I'm more than open to correction. I agree that Marietta would be pretty dim if she didn't realise that Umbridge was strict and that the school had become a rather draconian place, complete with an Inquisitorial Squad an' all, but it's entirely possible that she was getting a different view on Umbridge from home. She can't see the world through Harry's POV - we can. For comparison, Seamus is also getting a different view on what's going on too. Yes, he changes his mind, but it's canon that the world is not divided into Bad People and those who believe Harry. If the Third Reich narrative line means anything, it shows that very bad things can happen with the tacit agreement of otherwise well-meaning people who are seduced by a line of spin which seems *rational*. >From the point of view of the disinterested parent, doubts about Dumbledore's running of the school make sense - the attacks in CoS, a werewolf on the staff, Cedric's death, dementors having to be deployed, Dumbledore's deserting of his post: none of these would inspire confidence in a parent who doesn't know the full story, and most don't. Mus From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Sep 7 17:23:37 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 13:23:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Timeline for DH Message-ID: <3925323.1189185817348.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176831 From: Sali Morris >He doesn't turn 18 in DH, but he does have an extra birthday which makes him >37 in the epilogue. At the end of the last chapter he is 17. Plus 19 years >makes him 36 in the summer before the epilogue (early summer 2017?). He then >has a birthday between the exact 19 years on from the end of the last >chapter and the epilogue which takes place September that year. Bart: This reminds me. Is there a decent timeline anywhere for DH? One thing that I have specifically been trying to figure out: Did Lupin and Tonks HAVE to get married, so to speak? Bart From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 18:20:21 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:20:21 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176832 - > Magpie: > By "muddling" the view of sentience JKR gets to have it both ways. > Animals can't understand an insult. Buckbeak is anthropomorphized in > order to have him react to an insult *exactly* the way any human > would--only with greater strength because he's an animal. Further > stacking the deck, this is described as being an "instinct" for the > animal. > Prep0strus: But JKR is not unique in doing this, and it is not new in fantasy (like with unicorns). Fantastical animals ARE different from real animals. He didn't react exactly the way a human would - clawing someone for insulting them? Maybe some people... But the point it is WAS described as instinct. that's not 'stacking the deck' - that's stating the facts! it's how it works, how the rules are set up. Just because Draco is too stupid and mean to follow the rules doesn't mean the world is conspiring against him. Magpie: > So we get this highly satisfying mixture where Draco's behavior-- > which is perfectly acceptable in dealing with an animal, actually, > so much so that I believe in the movie it's *Hagrid* who calls > Buckbeak some kind of brute while Draco is made to do things that > would actually provoke an animal--gets him a smackdown from an > animal. Ok, no, no, no, no, and no. Perfectly acceptable when dealing with an animal? Ok, I've worked with chimpanzees. Smart, amazing, powerful animals full of complexities and personality. And if I went in, doing what I had been taught not to, bearing my teeth, standing aggressively, being too close, and I got a finger ripped off for it, that animal wouldn't be put down. I would be called an idiot for the rest of my life for acting in a way that lost me my finger, and they'd never let me near the animals again - nor should they. And if I had spent my time insulting the creatures? Please. And, I reiterate, there are specific rules for dealing with a hippogriff. Magical rules for a magical creature that JKR sets out for us. Draco breaks the rules; he does so in an offensive way. As for Hagrid's portrayal in the movies... well, I hate the way the movies treat Hagrid, and I don't think it has real bearing on the story. Magpie: > Iow, Buckbeak is an animal in his own universe, but his "instincts" > recreate the same behavior we would see in people. With the added > perk that "even animals" can see how much Draco sucks. And yet far > from that being that, a tit for tat, it's the start of a > second "Draco is a monstrous child!" storyline with even more > Gryffindor victims, with Buckbeak now sliding easily into the role > of Petey the Pup Who Never Hurt Nobody, Mister while Draco cackles > over slitting his throat. > Prep0strus: Ok, but it's not like Buckbeak has magical foresight. He treated Draco with respect until he was treated without it. It's not that 'even animals' can see how much Draco sucks. It's that Draco acts like a total jerk 'even to animals'. You may not like the storyline, the way Draco is drawn, but that's how it is. How can we have sympathy for him, as if we should simply feel bad that JKR made him so terrible, so obviously, he's not really that terrible. He IS a monstrous child. Buckbeak never would have hurt him without provocation. > > Magpie: > Well, so is Hagrid's. I've had this argument many times, and I will > never understand see Hagrid as anything like these hypothetical > teachers who run incredibly responsible classes. There's no > indication that Draco isn't watching the animal for signs of > aggression. He hasn't been warned about loud noises or fast > movements. He's been taught to bow etc., which he does, and he quite > possibly didn't hear the line "Hyppogriffs are proud so don't > insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do." (Obviously a > ridiculous way of introducing the danger to a class full of kids.) > With all the attention paid to Draco's cowardice, how is it that > he's also reckless enough to tease a wild animal? Or is it just that > he can be self-contradictory as long as he's bad in every way? > Prep0strus: Yes, the classes are ridiculous. But so are the other classes. Dangerous things can happen all over that school, and do. but if the students acted responsibly, there wouldn't have been a problem. The other students do. It's only Draco. And, like I said, Snape wouldn't put up with that nonsense. And if he didn't hear the line about not insulting them - that's also his fault. Pay attention. Dangerous creatures. Draco's a jerk, but he's not supposed to be a moron. Draco teases the animal because he doesn't believe Hagrid - he thinks Hagrid's an idiot. "This is very esy," malfoy drawled, loud enolugh for Harry to hear him. "I knew it must have been, if Potter could do it.... I bet you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he said to the hippogriff. "Are you, you great ugly brute?" Draco isn't courageous. He's arrogant and superior to something he considers below him. And, again, if you want to criticize the way he's written, that's very very valid. But it doesn't make him any better. He still is terrible. Even if she makes him a doddering caricature of a person, that's how she made him. He's a horrid little boy. > > Magpie: > Gee, you mean like throwing a firecracker in a cauldron? I believe > it was Crabbe and Goyle that suffered the consequences then. No big > deal. But to answer your question, of course they'd suffer the > consequences. Draco does here. I didn't disagree that Draco suffered > the consequences of his own actions-that's why Buckbeak slashed him. > That's also why he actually learns to listen in class later--listen > very carefully because he knows not to trust Hagrid to really put > across the danger accurately. > Prep0strus: If Snape had caught Harry... whoo-boy, he would've been in trouble. Just lucky to get away. But let's remember motivations as well. Harry's motivation was a distraction so he could do something he felt vital to defeating evil. Draco's motivation is that he's a nasty little git. Draco doesn't suffer nearly as much here. He gets slashed. So? Harry gets hurt worse than that all the time. Draco gets patched up quickly, then milks it. He gets out of work because of it, gets sympathy, and then Buckbeak is going to be executed. Not bad for him, really. Yes, some pain which is swiftly taken away, but then days of special treatment. > Magpie: Draco deserves > it. Neville deserves a little patience. Draco made a deliberate > mistake. Neville made an honest mistake. Even though they both could > have basically done the same thing. Kids make mistakes. > Prep0strus: but draco DID deserve it. Neville DID make an honest mistake. Even if Draco wasn't warned, what kind of a nasty little kid treats an animal like that, no less a potentially dangerous animal? That's not a 'mistake'. It's a deliberate, foolish action. > Magpie: > Funny, because I also find it one of the more sickening in the HP > books, but for a slightly different reason. The Slytherins getting > pleasure in Buckbeak being put down is one, but I'm also creeped out > by Slytherin's being set up to do that in the first place. The > author uses an animal created for the purpose of attacking him > because he "deserves it" and then uses it as a springboard > for "Please Don't Shoot My Dog!" casting the equally irresponsible > teacher as the victim. Because Hagrid's not giving a damn about > people getting hurt is kind of cute while the Slytherin's is clearly > sick. It's all about whipping up that feeling about the Slytherins, > isn't it. It's like the exact kind of sadistic attitude so > disgusting in the Slytherins permeates the book and is given a > totally righteous spin, which is why PoA is one of my least favorite > books despite the great revelations in the Shack. > > -m Prep0strus: But Slytherin wasn't set up by anyone... except the author. Which is not a 'setup' - it is a scene that shows the character of the characters. Hagrid not giving a damn about people getting hurt is just plain false, as we see in his quick actions to rescue Draco and get him to the healer, as well as how upset he is later. "madam Pomfrey fixed him best she could," said hagrid dully, "but he's sayin' it's still agony... covered in bandages...moanin'..." Hagrid cares a lot, and suffers way more throughout the incident than Draco does. Draco suffers momentary pain, then he actually gets a bonus out of it. Hagrid is in misery over thinking he hurt a child - he does love teaching. he's worried about losing his job (possibly appropriately, but the standards do seem very different at Hogwarts than in RL). And he's heartbroken that Buckbeak might be killed for acting as a hippogriff. These classes are dangerous, these animals are dangerous. but the Griffindors are right - it WAS a good lesson. A lesson these kids SHOULD learn. Respect for these creatures, and everyone in class was doing very well, following instructions and learning. Only Draco, because he is a 'bad' kid has a problem. And that problem is easily fixable with a trip to Pomfrey. and the rest of the book, what do we see from draco? just him trying to cause grievous injury to harry by masquerading as a dementor. Harry nearly dies one time because of them, so, sure, Draco tries to create the same situation. Because harry is overwhelmed by having seen his parents killed by draco's dad's boss, who is also his ideological idol. I can see being irritated at what a straw man JKR makes Draco, but that doesn't excuse Draco. His actions are inexcusable. JKR may despise a traitor, but I despise someone who's cruel to animals. The whole thing was another example of the innate unfairness inherent in the books, that makes them feel much more like children's books than adults (i can't see Buckbeak really being killed in real life), but it doesn't excuse Draco's actions. He can't be 'set up' any further than he wants to go. Also, he ruined class for everybody for the rest of the semester. Good job. (I know care of magical creatures wasn't anybody's favorite class, but it would have been mine, and i'd be pissed to be stuck with flobberworms) ~Adam (Prep0strus) From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Fri Sep 7 19:02:51 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:02:51 -0000 Subject: Timeline for DH In-Reply-To: <3925323.1189185817348.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176833 > Bart: > This reminds me. Is there a decent timeline anywhere for DH? One thing that I have specifically been trying to figure out: Did Lupin and Tonks HAVE to get married, so to speak? > > Bart > Hickengruendler: Remus and Tonks got married eithe rin June or the first half of July. (They already were before Harry's birthday.) Before the Trio got kidnapped by the Snatchers, it was mentioned, that it was March. After their escape they spent some time in Shell Cottage, before Lupin appeared. So it was at least late March, if not April, when Teddy was born. If we take the latest possible wedding date for Lupin and Tonks and the earliest possible birthdate for Teddy, the difference would be around eight month. Given that they need some time to "discover" the pregnancy, I would argue, that it is unlikely, that they had to marry, unless they did it *really* quickly after they found out about the pregnancy. Also, Harry noticed how excited Tonks looked during his birthday party, not when they catched him from Privet Drive, at which time they already were married. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 19:10:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:10:59 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176834 Mike wrote: > Except the train rides home after books 4 & 5, I didn't see MCG getting beat up by HRH. (And no Gryff jinxed MCG on 5's ride home) And didn't I see Draco and Crabbe-n-Goyle bullying HRH on several train rides to Hogwarts? Like in books 1, 3, 4, & 6. I suppose the Slyths didn't land any jinxes, except 6 where Draco got his revenge with both a jinx and a stomp. > Since we spend 90% of the books following Harry, we were sure to see them using more spells of all sorts than we'd see from their Slytherin counterparts. BTW, where are all these dark spells used by Gryffs against the Slyth students? Do you mean the Trio, Fred and George against MCG in book 4? And might I counter with Draco's cursed neckless and poisoned mead in book 6? Which I believe almost killed two Gryffs. Carol responds: I'm not on any particular side in this discussion (still trying to figure out my own views), but I want to throw in my two cents here (should that be "tuppence" and do Brits use that expression?). It's true that no Gryffindor joined in the mass jinxing and hexing by six DA members against three Slytherins in OoP, but the definition of "good guys" has now been expanded to include Hufflepuffs, such as Ernie Macmillan and Justin F-F, and Ravenclaws, such as Terry Boot and Anthony Goldstein. And it's interesting that two girls (both Hufflepuffs) joined in this time, Hannah Abbott and Susan Bones. MCG, as you call them (I thought at first that you meant McGonagall ), resemble "three gigantic slugs" when the DA are done with them and are hoisted into the luggage rack by Harry, Justin, and Ernie and left ot "ooze" (864). The attack was not self-defense but a more-or-less preemptive strike since it appears that Draco and company were planning to attack HRH didn't get any hexes in before the DA members jumped out of their compartment (and Crabbe and Goyle usually raise their fists rather than their wands. When do we see them casting a single spell before DH?). It's clear from Narcissa's reaction in HBP that she blames *Harry* for the condition in which she found her son at the end of the fifth-year train ride (not to mention the previous year, when he was actually involved): "If you attack my son again, I shall ensure that it is the last thing you ever do" (HBP Am. ed. 113). However, Draco's stomp has nothing to do with hexing in the corridors of the train or the school; it's revenge for Harry's role in Lucius Malfoy's arrest ("That's from my father," HBP 154), carrying out the vow he made in OoP: "You're going to pay. *I'm* going to make you pay for what you've done to my father" (OoP Am. ed. 851). Having frozen Harry in an absurd position, covered him with his own Invisibility Cloak to be overlooked and sent back to London (retaliation for spying on Draco and his friends, presumably), he takes care to tread on Harry's invisible fingers (maybe he finds them by feel or remembers where they are), perhaps as retribution for having been stepped on himself in GoF (by George, IIRC, but Draco probably doesn't know or care since it all comes back to Harry). At that point, IMO, Draco stops caring about Harry and gives his attention to more weighty matters like fixing the Vanishing Cabinet and killing Dumbledore. As for the necklace and the mead nearly killing Gryffindors, that's pure coincidence. Imperio'd Rosmerta gave the necklace to the first girl who entered the restroom; the mead was supposed to have been a Christmas present for DD but Slughorn kept it. He could as easily have drunk it himself, and, indeed, poured glasses for himself and Harry as well as "Ralph." I'm not defending Draco (though I pity him); I'm just saying that harming Gryffindors was no part of his plan. Both cases, especially the necklace, were poorly thought-out desperation measures that could have harmed a staff member or a student from any House as easily as a Gryffindor. If we look at the duel outside Snape's class in GoF (Am. ed. 298-99), where the spells hit each other and are deflected onto Hermione and Goyle, I'd say that Harry's boil hex (Furnunculus) is at least as nasty and considerably more painful than Draco's Densuageo (which, incidentally, is one of the many bad things in the books that ends up having unintended good consequences, the shortening and straightening of Hermione's teeth--no credit to Draco, of course). In the GoF train scene, Harry again uses the Furnunculus Curse (probably a hex based on relative "darkness" though the narrator refers to a "jumble of jinxes" and treats it as lightly as George's Jelly-Legs jinx). The two combined somehow result in "little tentacles all over [Crabbe's] face" (GoF Am. ed. 730), which George finds amusing. Meanwhile, Fred steps on Goyle and George treads on Draco as the enter the compartment (730). Those gallant Gryffindors. I do understand Harry's anger, but I think a raised wand and a "Get out now or I'll hex you!" would have sufficed. (He later threatens to hex the twins if they don't take the TWT winnings, GoF 733.) BTW, JKR can't make up her mind regarding hexes and jinxes. The narrator says that "all three of them [HRH] had used a different hex" but then refers (alliteratively) to the "jumble of jinxes" later on the same page (730). It seems to me that she's going for sound effects rather than distinguishing levels of darkness here. We don't know what the other spells are, but it's five Gryffindors against three Slytherins. Two of the Gryffindors attack from behind. Moreover, Draco has not raised his wand. He has merely said (admittedly maliciously and provocatively) that "Mudbloods" and Muggle-lovers (clearly referring to Hermione and Ron) will be the first to go now that the Dark Lord is back. (The reference to Cedric Diggory being the first is almost an aside, a self-correction.) Crabbe and Goyle have done nothing more than flank Draco as usual and leer. Yet all three end up unconscious on the floor, and the narrator describes them as being "covered in hex marks" (733). It's hard to say whether JKR approves of this behavior, or of Harry's sneaking into the Slytherin compartment to spy in HBP. (Harry's tendency to eavesdrop perhaps parallels the young Snape's.) She clearly doesn't approve of barging into someone's train compartment and uttering threats. Clearly, the Gryffindors see themselves as being in the right here, but I'm not sure that the reader is supposed to, especially given the more sympathetic depiction of Draco in later books when, ironically, he is actually a Death Eater himself (though an apprentice one). An interesting distinction here: Draco from the end of GoF through the beginning of HBP thinks that he has chosen the *winning* side; HRH and co. think that they've chosen the *right* side. Unfortunately, they also seem to think that being the good guys justifies the use of Mike: > JKR does have the good guy Gryffs throwing out a lot of jinxes and hexes for laughs. I suppose she thought the adolescent, slap-stick humor would appeal to the younger male audience. Personally, I found Fred and George's one-liners much funnier than their magical pranks. Though those pranks often set up the one-liners. Carol: True, but they also attack a defenseless Muggle and they start the trend of stepping on unconscious or helpless people. Hitting people when they're down, so to speak, is *not* gallant, nor is tripping a boy you don't even know as he leaves your compartment (James in "The Prince's Tale"). The Gryffindors (at least, those close to Harry) are on the winning side and value bravery, but they don't really understand what valor and chivalry and gallantry--the Gryffindor ideal--really is. (And, please, fellow posters, don't attack me by saying that chivalry is an antiquated, anti-feminist virtue. I'm talking about what Godric Gryffindor, a medieval wizard, valued, and what his House is supposed to be about. See James's imaginary sword and the requirements for retrieving the Sword of Gryffindor.) > Mike: > I do think that most of the semi-dark magic used by HRH was purposeful and justified. Carol: We disagree there. It's mostly kids arguing with each other and using magic to settle the arguments. And in HBP, Harry sinks to James's level (hexing people in the hallways) by hitting Crabbe with the toenail hex with no stated provocation and twice hitting the defenceless Filch with Langlock. Ginny, too, seems to hex people who annoy her, particularly Zacharias Smith, who isn't even a Slytherin. And equal-opportunity Hermione hexes Ron and McClaggen, both Gryffindors. Purposeful and justified? IMO, only in the DE chase and the battle of Hogwarts. Even in the TWT, Harry doesn't use any Dark magic, IIRC, nor does he use it in the graveyard or the confrontation with Voldemort. I do understand the use of Imperius in the Gringotts scene even though I don't like it. As for that "gallant" Crucio of Harry's and McGonagall's Imperius Curse, good thing the battle was over quickly or "our side" would be in danger of succumbing to the use of evil means to control evil like Barty Crouch Sr. And how about those daggers McG conjured? Geez! (But then she rounds up *desks* to fight against the real DEs. Maybe she decided that she didn't like Dark magic after all. I can only hope.) Mike: > And, yeah, I wish she had put more jinxes and hexes from the Slyth students in the mix to justify the "Dark Arts" House motif she wants us to buy into. Carol: Exactly. *Buy into.* Yes, Mulciber becomes a Death eater who specializes in the Imperius Curse, but what did he *try* to use against Lily's friend Mary McDonald? We're not told, much less shown. We're just supposed to take Lily's word that it's Dark magic and "evil" and Mulciber is "creepy" (DH Am ed. 673-74). What makes Mulciber "evil" and James merely an arrogant, bullying "toerag"? And how does Lily know that something Mulciber *tried* (and failed) to do is "Dark magic"? (I'm not criticizing Lily, folks. I'm criticizing JKR.) As for jinxes and hexes, we see the one the HBP invented, and except for Sectumsempra, they're all of the "amusing" variety that Harry and Ron find funny (though Hermione doesn't because they come from the HBP's book and aren't "Ministry approved." Hey. Is that our clue? "Dark magic" is unapproved by the Ministry? Shame on James for using Levicorpus, then, and shouldn't Lily have criticized it for that reason, unless she knew it was Sev's own spell used against him?) And Muffliato, of course, isn't even a hex or jinx, just a charm. We also see Severus's early interest in *Defense Against* the Dark Arts (that DADA OWL) but the only evidence of an interest in Dark magic is Sectumsempra and his later expertise in healing Dark curses. We see none at all of Draco's supposed interest in Dark magic, unless we count his expressed desire for a Hand of Glory in CoS (which JKR forgets that his father didn't buy for him). Mike: > I suppose she thought having most of the DEs being former Slyths was enough. But considering the stage time imbalance in favor of the Gryffs, she could have done much more to back up her proposition. Carol: Exactly. I think it's particularly ugly and unfair of JKR to have Harry state that the Slytherin common room "is full of skulls and stuff" (DH Am. ed. 450) when he saw no such things in CoS (is JKR confusing the Slytherin common room with Borgin and Burkes?) and to have the Snatcher Scabior (not a real DE) agree that he must be "a little Slytherin" (450). Greyback, of course, would not know the difference, never having been allowed to attend Hogwarts because he was a werewolf (though we know now that he's a wizard). But if Scabior is a Slytherin, he should know that the statement isn't true (as should Harry--and JKR). For the record, here's the description from CoS: "The Slytherin common room was a long, low underground room with rough stone walls and eeiling from which round, greenish lamps humg on chains. A fire was crackling under an elaborately carved mantelpiec ahead of them, and several Slytherins wer silhouetted around in in high-backed chairs" (CoS Am. ed. 221). Not a skull or Dark artifact in sight. Anyway, I stand by my contention in earlier posts that the last two books show the human side of Slytherin, which Harry finally sees. But nevertheless, JKR's clear association between DEs and Slytherin (which is not necessarily what the reader sees, especially in Harry's generation, in which only Draco actually becomes a DE--and hates it) is unmistakeable, and that particular detail seems to cement it (though it's actually intended as proof that Harry isn't a Muggle-born because "there ain't a lot of Mudblood Slytherins" (DH 450). And we don't really know whether the DEs (except for Wormtail) are all former Slytherins. Few of the women seem to have joined, with only Bellatrix Lestrange and Alecto Carrow being actual DEs (Narcissa is a sympathizer and supporter). Of the men, I can recall only the Lestrange brothers, Avery, Mulciber, Malfoy, the long-dead Wilkes and Rosier, and the renegades Regulus Black and Severus Snape as known Slytherins of Snape's generation (and Nott from an earlier one, though he has a teeenage son). Is Karkaroff a Hogwarts alumnus (and Slytherin) or is he from Durmstrang? What about Dolohov? Were Travers and Yaxley Slytherins? The execrable Carrows? The non-DE but Muggle-born persecuting Umbridge? We're not told. It seems to me that the pure-blood supremacy agenda takes center stage in DH and Dark magic is just a side issue, loosely associated with Slytherin House and the DEs (even more so with Voldemort and Grindelwald). It's as if JKR is dumping all the forms of evil in her imaginary world onto Voldemort's side, tainting Slytherin House in the process. But if we look at the actual Slytherins we know, chiefly Snape, Slughorn, and the Malfoys, we see something different. Draco and his parents are undoubtedly pure-blood supremacists who own some Dark artifacts, and Lucius Malfoy has no objection to using the Unforgiveable Curses, but it's unclear how Narcissa feels about them and Draco clearly hates having to perform them. Slughorn is not a DE, is only mildly prejudiced (compare Fudge), and is not associated with Dark magic at all. And Snape uses "Mudblood" only once in canon (perhaps he used it before, as Lily says, but we don't hear it) and chastises Phineas Nigellus for using the term. He invents one Dark spell but also invents the countercurse, and he uses his knowledge of the Dark Arts for healing or to save lives while keeping his cover (George's ear) in HBP and DH. I think we have to read *around* Harry's pov as expressed both by the narrator and by Harry himself to see what is really there. And, regardless of JKR's intentions, Slytherin per se, particularly in Harry's generation, is not as bad as it's painted. Draco, with his DE father and outspoken anti-"Mudblood" sentiments, is the representative of Slytherin that Harry sees most of. And Draco learns as many lessons as Harry does in HBP and DH. Maybe, with a non-DE HoH who fought against Voldemort in the Battle of Hogwarts, Slytherin House will have a chance to turn around in terms of its pure-blood superiority ethic. But meanwhile, its reputation as the house associated with Dark magic seems to be almost wholly unfounded. Carol, who forgot to mention that the "dark magic" (jinxes and hexes) that the kids use against each other seems to be passed from one student to another rather than taught in the classroom From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 19:44:30 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:44:30 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew WAS: Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176835 Alla wrote: > > > > I mean, in TMTMNBN it was done so clearly, so easily - show Umbridge feeding veritaserum and voola. JKR opted not to do anything of the sort. Carol responds: JKR couldn't use that device because it would ruin the Snape subplot (as, IMO, the film did). Snape gives Umbridge fake Veritaserum, which she attempts to use on Harry, so even if she hadn't used it all up on him, any that she had left over would still be fake. It's part of his subtle undermining of and opposition to Umbridge, which Harry never sees (and refuses to accept even when DD tells him about it). The MTMNBN makes it look like he gave her huge amounts of it to give to all the students in that uncanonical mass detention--which does not explain why only Cho told her the truth. At any rate, canon Umbridge doesn't need to give Marietta Veritaserum since Marietta came to her. As an aside, had she gone to anyone else (her mother or her HoH, Flitwick) the jinx would still have taken effect--and it would still have had no effect whatsoever as a *deterrent* to snitching since neither she nor anyone else but Hermione knew that Hermione had jinxed the parchment. > Renee: > > And scarred for life? JKR says she had a few scars left at the end. I know several people in RL with visible acne scars. They don't look particularly bad and lead perfectly normal lives. > > > Alla: > > I know such person really really well. Carol: But, somehow, I'll bet that that person's acne scars don't spell out SNEAK. Nor is it punishment for a crime that person doesn't remember committing. Carol, who does not share JKR's view that revenge can be humorous From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 19:53:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:53:12 -0000 Subject: Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176836 --- "Sali Morris" wrote: > > > > Sali: > > He doesn't turn 18 in DH, but he does have an extra > birthday which makes him 37 in the epilogue. At the > end of the last chapter he is 17. Plus 19 years > makes him 36 in the summer before the epilogue (early > summer 2017?). He then has a birthday between the > exact 19 years on from the end of the last chapter > and the epilogue which takes place September that > year. > > Sali, who has checked and re-checked her maths but is > still terrified of it being wrong bboyminn: I think you are probably right. At the time of Voldemort's death, Harry is 17. But what was the month? These final events usually occur in June near the end of the school year. Regardless, June will serve this example. So, one month later, on July 31, Harry turns 18. Now 19 years later makes Harry 18+19=37. But it is September 1, so that makes Harry roughly 37 years and 1 month old at the time we see him at the train station. Young James seems to have been going to Hogwarts for a while, so, I'm going to peg his age, partly base on his behavior and demeanor, at about 13 or 14. Nineteen years minus 14 years leaves 5 years for the Gang to grow up and establish themselves and further establish their relationship. JKR said she jumped 19 years in the future because she didn't want Harry and the gang to get married as to start having babies so young. She wanted to give them some time to grow up and also to have a span of normal life before settling down. >From my above calculations, is seems that the growing up span was 5 years. Still the question remains, why not 20 years? I can understand why she didn't want to drop back to 15 years. That's too soon to have the family dymanic we see in the Epilogue. Twenty Five years is also too long to see the same family dynamic. Still it seems such an odd number? For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From AllieS426 at aol.com Fri Sep 7 20:05:12 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:05:12 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176837 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Snape" wrote: > > Snape's Witch: > > No, Dumbledore definitely did not perform the spell, because he (and > everyone else) thought Sirius Black was the Secret Keeper. BTW Black > was never the SK in case anyone asks!! > > Since Lily was a charms whiz, I expect she's the one who performed the > spell. > Allie again: Oops, my mistake, of course not!!! But he still could have placed the Fidelius charm. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 20:18:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:18:19 -0000 Subject: Fred and George and Karma (Was: Harry as Frodo or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176838 Magpie: > Last I looked, it wasn't karmic at all. Fred dies a hero killed by DEs > and George loses his brothers and an ear to same. For it to come > across as karma it has to be tied to their own actions and be ironic > in some way. It's not--they're just heroes. What they did to Montague > is not considered a bad thing at all as far as I can see. Even > everything that happened in HBP is dealt with with an off-hand, "Have > to talk to the Twins about who they're selling their products too." > Now that the series is over even that reads like a plot point, not a > lesson. Carol responds: Fred dies rather pointlessly, killed by a falling wall. It's poignant that he dies just after he's made up with Percy and ironic that he dies just as Percy has made what may be his first-ever joke. BTW, I'm sure I read a post recently which suggested that Percy accidentally killed Fred and suffered a lifetime of remorse, but almost the only posts I can find on the subject of Fred and Percy are mine, and I definitely don't hold that view! Certainly, there's nothing karmic in Fred's death (if JKR were after karmic retribution for the Weasleys, surely it would have been Percy who died). I would have expected Fred and George to be together, maybe even to die together fighting like heroes (cf. their uncles, Fabian and Gideon Prewett). Instead, Fred's death is even more sudden and unexpected and random than Sirius Black's. At least *he* was fighting a Death Eater and is sent through the Veil by her spell (and he's recklessly fighting on the dais of the Veil and taunting his opponent). Fred has just finished Stunning a DE and Percy has just hit Pius Thicknesse with a strange spell that makes him resemble a sea urchin. Percy jokes that he's resigning, Fred "look[s] at him with "glee" and remarks appreciatively that "Perce" is joking, and then, just "when danger seem[s] temporarily at bay," the wall falls, killing only Fred, who dies "with the ghost of his laugh still etched upon his face" (DH Am. ed. 637). The brother who, until just hours before, had been at odds with the whole family, and especially the Twins, throws himself across Fred's body to shield it from further harm. It's almost unbearably sad and ironic, and I don't even like Fred. His death, like Cedric's and Black's, is completely unexpected. Moreover, he's not even murdered; his death is unrelated to anything that he's doing. He's merely laughing at a joke made by his straitlaced brother when a wall falls on him. Carol, who thinks that JKR wanted Fred to, quite literally, die laughing From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 20:32:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 20:32:35 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176839 --- "allies426" wrote: > > --- "Elizabeth Snape" > wrote: > > > > > Snape's Witch: > > > > No, Dumbledore definitely did not perform the spell, > > because he (and everyone else) thought Sirius Black > > was the Secret Keeper. BTW Black was never the SK > >in case anyone asks!! > > > > Since Lily was a charms whiz, I expect she's the > > one who performed the spell. > > > Allie again: > > Oops, my mistake, of course not!!! But he still > could have placed the Fidelius charm. > bboyminn: Still, if you are going to hold that position, that Dumbledore /could/ have placed the Secret Keeper Charm, then you are going to have to justify it in a way that is consistent with the books. Care to tackle that? As to who cast the spell, I get the sense that James and Lily wanted to keep Dumbledore out of it. He had more than enough on his plate as it was, and he also had a higher likelihood of being captured or killed. Also, keep in mind that James was one of the most brilliant students to ever come through Hogwarts. Not THE most brilliant, but certainly one of the most brilliant. Further Lily was no slouch herself, not to mention that Sirius was also a brilliant student. Anyone of them would have been more than able to cast the charm to protect the Potters. Given the level of students we are talking about, I don't think there is any lack of available people to cast the charm. Just curious. Steve/bboyminn From angellima at xtra.co.nz Fri Sep 7 21:14:32 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:14:32 +1200 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: <003f01c7f194$15de4310$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176840 Alla: Well, yes and that is why IMO Marietta does not get killed with self strangling silver hand, doesn't she? See, I do not believe that JKR meant to distinguish much between the **act** itself - act of treachery I mean, only between severity of it. Pettigrew was delivering information on his best friends and comrades for a year in essense, no? Angel: I have snipped a lot in the discussion of exacting vengeance/justice on Marietta. This single incident epitomises the whole House A vs House B Lizzyben was originally talking about and since I wholeheartedly agree with all contents of her post, will leave that well alone. Here however, it's interesting that Marietta is punished for betraying the trio. In essence Marietta betrayed her friends - Cho who brought her along. It seems to JKR the worst sin is to first betray the trio, second betray your friends. Marietta as a child/teenager was judged and very much deserved her permanent punishment because she committed those two sins in one. It was okay for Marietta to betray her mother and authority but not her friends and most certainly not the trio! Percy was left unblemished because he betrayed his family for his own set of friends an act JKR once again seems to consider gallant. Besides the Weasleys could afford to lose only one child and Fred's death much more dramatic a loss [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 21:12:05 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:12:05 -0000 Subject: Godric's Hollow and the Fidelius In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176841 jme wrote: > > > And so I am left with the question, what about Godric's Hollow? > If Peter Pettigrew as the Secret-Keeper, how was it possible that > Hermione and Harry was able to see the ruins of the cottage? For > that matter, how were the "tourists" able to see the cottage and > leave those messages? Pettigrew was still alive, so it stands to > reason, the Potter Place at Godric's Hollow should still be > unplottable right? > > > Dondee: > > The way I understand it, James and Lily's FC was broken when they died because the charm was on them and not Godric's Hollow. Carol responds: Actually, JKR answers this question in DH. Harry speculates (wrongly) that the Fidelius Charm was broken when his parents died, but Voldemort's flashback to the murder of the Potters indicates otherwise: ". . . and now his destination was in sight, the Fidelius charm *broken,* though [the Potters] did not know it yet" (DH Am. ed. 343, my italics). Voldemort can see the Potters in their sitting room, all three of them, whereas if the spell were still in effect, he could press his nose against the window of the cottage where they were hiding and still be unable to see them, as Flitwick explains to Rosmerta (PoA Am. ed. 205). How could the spell already be broken, even before the Potters were killed and their home partially destroyed? Clearly, IMO, because Wormtail has broken the charm by revealing the secret placed in him to the very person from whom the Potters were hiding: Voldemort. As Dumbledore tells Snape, they "put their *faith* in the wrong person" (DH 678, my italics). "Fidelius" is the neuter singular nominative form of the adjective "fidelis" meaning faithful. (Compare "fidelitas," = fidelity or faithfulness.) Quite simply, a Fidelius Charm is a Faithfulness Charm, dependent on the SK's keeping faith with the people he is protecting, being worthy of their faith in him, their trust. Wormtail has broken the Fidelius Charm by breaking faith with the Potters. The fact that he is alive has nothing to do with whether the charm is still in effect. It's been broken since at least October 31, 1981, perhaps a few days earlier. The cottage itself was never protected by the spell, only the Potters, who were invisible to those who didn't know the Secret as long as they remained inside, in contrast to the spell on 12 GP, where the Secret is the location of the *headquarters* of the Order of the Phoenix, which means that the building itself is invisible to those who don't know the secret. The Fidelius charm on 12 GP, though diluted by the number of Secret keepers after DD's death, is still in place (at least until Hermione accidentally reveals it to Yaxley) because no one (including Snape) has revealed the secret to Voldemort or the loyal DEs. As an aside, I suspect that both the cottage in Godric's Hollow and 12 GP had Muggle-repelling charms placed on them which are still in effect regardless of whether the Fidelius Charm is broken. That's how Harry knows that "Bathilda" isn't a Muggle. (Too bad he can't tell that she's an Inferius, or a body possessed by a demon snake. I'm not quite sure what's going on there.) Carol, happy to see the focus shifting to the middle of the book and hoping that we'll find more to say about those neglected chapters From angellima at xtra.co.nz Fri Sep 7 21:37:45 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 09:37:45 +1200 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: <004701c7f197$5458cd10$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176843 Alla: Or Hermione acted as someone who attempted to defend herself and her friends who acted in opposition to Umbridge regime. Angel: Absolutely not!!! This was no defensive act on Hermione's part. It was no preemptive. Who did she hope to defend by this trickery? No one that I could see, Harry only got off because of Dumbledore's trickery. Hermione had no part in anyone's defence here. Defence would imply there was a means to do something to protect everyone. Hermione's spell was retribution pure and simple. If you told, you get scarred. There is no liplock spell in action here to pre-empt telling. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 21:45:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:45:21 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew WAS: Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176844 > Carol responds: > > As an aside, had she gone to anyone else (her mother or her HoH, > Flitwick) the jinx would still have taken effect--and it would still > have had no effect whatsoever as a *deterrent* to snitching since > neither she nor anyone else but Hermione knew that Hermione had jinxed > the parchment. Alla: Sure, most likely. My point is though that if she would have went to her mother, it would caused **me** as a reader to see her in more sympathetic light than I see now. I would have seen some reason to see her as **torn teenager** and not as close as to what Pettigrew did. But she did not; she went to Umbridge, on her own AFAIR. Eggplant107 wrote: > > We're talking about a teacher more than willing to use torture and > > even death as a punishment, and please don't tell me Marietta didn't > > know that, if she didn't understand what sort of person that teacher > > was she was indeed a moral imbecile. > > Mus is puzzled: > > At the time that Marietta divulged all, how did she know this? Harry > and the reader know that Umbridge is willing to use torture, but he > is rather unwilling to tell even Ron and Hermione. Does he tell the > rest of the DA? If he does, then I can't find it, though I'm more > than open to correction. > > I agree that Marietta would be pretty dim if she didn't realize that > Umbridge was strict and that the school had become a rather draconian > place, complete with an Inquisitorial Squad an' all, but it's > entirely possible that she was getting a different view on Umbridge > from home. She can't see the world through Harry's POV - we can. Alla: Completely with Eggplant on this point. Well, I do not share his conviction that Marietta got off easy or she needed to be shot, but I certainly do not think that she was treated unfairly. I do not see how in order to see what kind of "creature" (cannot call her human being, sorry) Umbridge is Marietta has to be in Harry POV. Her educational decrees were there for whole school to see and read, are they not? There was also a more important hint, which I though not hundred percent sure of, since OOP is the book I know worst (Thanks Dolores dear - cannot stand reading about you). I think there was a brief mention in there somewhere that Harry was **not** the only person who got blood quill detentions. So, do I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that Marietta would have gotten the word from other students, if not from Harry? Yes, I do. But I would not be able to find a quote. I hope I did not dream it up. And Marietta still went to the person who tortured students with blood quill. Nope, no sympathy from me. > Alla: > > > > Or Hermione acted as someone who attempted to defend herself and her > friends who acted in opposition to Umbridge regime. > > > > Angel: > > > > Absolutely not!!! This was no defensive act on Hermione's part. It was no > preemptive. Who did she hope to defend by this trickery? No one that I > could see, Harry only got off because of Dumbledore's trickery. > > > > Hermione had no part in anyone's defense here. Defense would imply there > was a means to do something to protect everyone. Hermione's spell was > retribution pure and simple. If you told, you get scarred. There is no > liplock spell in action here to pre-empt telling. Alla: That's your opinion. Mine is that while her defense could surely been better executed, the idea of seeing the traitor with the word **SNEAK** would allow the rest of DA to do **something** this very moment. I mean, hex would have supposed to show off the moment traitor committed the act, I think it could have bought them some time. So, who could Hermione hoped to defend? I say all members of the DA who risked a lot if Umbridge caught them IMO. Liplock spell would have been nice actually. But the idea as I see it was to stop traitor from at least continue doing what he was doing. Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione - ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no? JMO, Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 7 21:53:48 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:53:48 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176845 > > Magpie: > > By "muddling" the view of sentience JKR gets to have it both ways. > > Animals can't understand an insult. Buckbeak is anthropomorphized in > > order to have him react to an insult *exactly* the way any human > > would--only with greater strength because he's an animal. Further > > stacking the deck, this is described as being an "instinct" for the > > animal. > > > > Prep0strus: > But JKR is not unique in doing this, and it is not new in fantasy > (like with unicorns). Fantastical animals ARE different from real > animals. Magpie: I didn't say she was unique for muddling, but the way she's muddling it is specific for the reaction we get. We wind up with a pretty obvious joke--Draco says something insulting and the animal smacks him down. It's not particularly fantastic--it's an easy joke done on sitcoms as well as fantasy. Most fantasy writers, in fact, would probably make the animal more unique as a creature. Prep0strus: He didn't react exactly the way a human would - clawing > someone for insulting them? Maybe some people... But the point it is > WAS described as instinct. that's not 'stacking the deck' - that's > stating the facts! it's how it works, how the rules are set up. Just > because Draco is too stupid and mean to follow the rules doesn't mean > the world is conspiring against him. > Magpie: Yes, I would say that's the way a lot of people would react, particularly in this universe. Buckbeak is basically just belting him one and happens to have claws. I know that it's described as instinct. That was my point. The animal belts Draco for being a jerk but then he's an innocent animal because it was really just an instinct that happened to play out exactly like something human. Buckbeak is reacting to an insult with anger while still being unresponsible for reacting to an insult with anger. The switch from devilish fun to angelic concern is for me pretty common in the series. It is stacking the deck for the reader, imo, because of how it works. "The world" most certainly is conspiring against Draco just as it often conspires against and then for Harry--Buckbeak has that particular instinct to put him on a collision course with this character. I'm talking here about the way the scene is set up, not Draco's own pov of his own world. Within his pov them's the breaks. (Just as the world conspires *with* Hagrid so that his particular brand of anthropomorphizing/admiring animals makes him an expert.) > > Magpie: > > So we get this highly satisfying mixture where Draco's behavior-- > > which is perfectly acceptable in dealing with an animal, actually, > > so much so that I believe in the movie it's *Hagrid* who calls > > Buckbeak some kind of brute while Draco is made to do things that > > would actually provoke an animal--gets him a smackdown from an > > animal. Prep0strus: > > Ok, no, no, no, no, and no. Perfectly acceptable when dealing with an > animal? Ok, I've worked with chimpanzees. Smart, amazing, powerful > animals full of complexities and personality. And if I went in, doing > what I had been taught not to, bearing my teeth, standing > aggressively, being too close, and I got a finger ripped off for it, > that animal wouldn't be put down. Magpie: Yes, yes, yes, yes.:-) Perfectly acceptable in working with animal. Nobody's talking about chimpanzees and baring your teeth. Petting an animal while calling it a great ugly brute is something an affectionate animal-lovers might certainly do, imo. What Draco is doing is not "provoking an animal" in any real world sense--his tone of voice might be positively soothing for all we know. It provokes this fictional creature who's been created around this totally fantastic quirk. (Which is why Draco's actions don't horrify me in themselves in this scene.) Prep0strus: I would be called an idiot for the > rest of my life for acting in a way that lost me my finger, and they'd > never let me near the animals again - nor should they. And if I had > spent my time insulting the creatures? Please. Magpie: I can't imagine calling animal control on somebody ruffling their Great Dane's ears and calling him a slobbery idiot, myself. Wonder what one would be called if one took those same chimps and released a dozen of them in a roomful of eighth graders after telling them not to bare or it'd be the last thing they'd do and one of them lost a finger when he smiled. Prepostrus: > > And, I reiterate, there are specific rules for dealing with a > hippogriff. Magical rules for a magical creature that JKR sets out > for us. Draco breaks the rules; he does so in an offensive way. As > for Hagrid's portrayal in the movies... well, I hate the way the > movies treat Hagrid, and I don't think it has real bearing on the story. Magpie: Yeah, I get that Draco broke the rules. I've never said he didn't. The movie's portrayal in this case I mentioned to show that there's nothing inherently violent or abusive in what Draco does in terms of real world standards any more than there's anything inherently wrong in Neville adding more than one spleen to his Potion. The movie is also significant, imo, because I think they feel like they need to make Hagrid look better and Draco worse to get the same emotion without the narrator to guide the audience along. > Magpie: > > Iow, Buckbeak is an animal in his own universe, but his "instincts" > > recreate the same behavior we would see in people. With the added > > perk that "even animals" can see how much Draco sucks. And yet far > > from that being that, a tit for tat, it's the start of a > > second "Draco is a monstrous child!" storyline with even more > > Gryffindor victims, with Buckbeak now sliding easily into the role > > of Petey the Pup Who Never Hurt Nobody, Mister while Draco cackles > > over slitting his throat. > > > > Prep0strus: > Ok, but it's not like Buckbeak has magical foresight. He treated > Draco with respect until he was treated without it. It's not that > 'even animals' can see how much Draco sucks. It's that Draco acts > like a total jerk 'even to animals'. Magpie: I didn't mean Buckbeak had magical foresight, I meant Buckbeak's created so that the way Draco sucks will get him a smack down that he deserves. As you yourself say--Draco sucks even to animals. That's what I get from the scene, and to me as a reader, I start pulling against the author and start looking for the suck somewhere else.:-) Prep0strus: > > You may not like the storyline, the way Draco is drawn, but that's how > it is. How can we have sympathy for him, as if we should simply feel > bad that JKR made him so terrible, so obviously, he's not really that > terrible. He IS a monstrous child. Buckbeak never would have hurt > him without provocation. Magpie: How can you have sympathy for him, you mean. Obviously many people do, unfortunately. There are other things going on in the scene here than Draco's "abuse" of Buckbeak, so different people pick up on and relate to different things in the scene--things that are just as valid and hot buttons to them. I've already agreed with you on the Draco character in general. Different emotional reactions aren't right or wrong. > Magpie: > > Well, so is Hagrid's. I've had this argument many times, and I will > > never understand see Hagrid as anything like these hypothetical > > teachers who run incredibly responsible classes. There's no > > indication that Draco isn't watching the animal for signs of > > aggression. He hasn't been warned about loud noises or fast > > movements. He's been taught to bow etc., which he does, and he quite > > possibly didn't hear the line "Hyppogriffs are proud so don't > > insult 'em or it's the last thing you'll do." (Obviously a > > ridiculous way of introducing the danger to a class full of kids.) > > With all the attention paid to Draco's cowardice, how is it that > > he's also reckless enough to tease a wild animal? Or is it just that > > he can be self-contradictory as long as he's bad in every way? > > > > Prep0strus: > Yes, the classes are ridiculous. But so are the other classes. > Dangerous things can happen all over that school, and do. but if the > students acted responsibly, there wouldn't have been a problem. The > other students do. It's only Draco. And, like I said, Snape wouldn't > put up with that nonsense. Magpie: Actually, all the teachers have to put up with this nonsense--making clear that they won't put up with it is part of a teacher's job. But I don't know what this has to do with anything anyway. You say it was only Draco, and yes, it was Draco. I have hard time thinking it *couldn't* have been anyone else given the set up (especially Neville, who was running around in a panic) and wind up thinking it was Draco because the author made sure to create a creature whose latin name might as well have been Targetus Draconis. Your emotional reaction to this seemed to be "OMG, Draco is such a horrible child!" Mine was, "I wish Hagrid would get eaten by something..." You focus on how Draco's not listening was especially bad because the class was so dangerous, while I think the class was stupidly dangerous. Prep0strus: > > And if he didn't hear the line about not insulting them - that's also > his fault. Pay attention. Dangerous creatures. Draco's a jerk, but > he's not supposed to be a moron. Draco teases the animal because he > doesn't believe Hagrid - he thinks Hagrid's an idiot. Magpie: He's right there, imo. But regardless I already agreed to this, that he wasn't paying attention--and pointed out that all the students have times when they don't pay attention, and it's only here where it becomes a cardinal sin. (I mean, I know the idea is supposed to be that it's extra stupid here because the animal is SO DANGEROUS but it still sounds like more than that, like there's just zero tolerance for something people and kids do all the time, and this is the first day.) Even here --he's stupid for not listening for those 10 seconds and yet is also teasing the creature because he didn't believe what he didn't hear. How's he doing both? We see him whispering in the moment Hagrid says this one thing, and we see him following the directions he was listening to. If he didn't believe Hagrid why'd he bow? I thought part of the burn on Draco was that he thought he was in the clear and successful. Prep0strus: > > "This is very esy," malfoy drawled, loud enolugh for Harry to hear > him. "I knew it must have been, if Potter could do it.... I bet > you're not dangerous at all, are you?" he said to the hippogriff. > "Are you, you great ugly brute?" > > Draco isn't courageous. He's arrogant and superior to something he > considers below him. Magpie: If he was actually provoking this animal intentionally, he was courageous (and more stupid)--he could have gotten himself killed! I think he's just being arrogant and superior. I am arguing against him being courageous here. Prep0strus: > And, again, if you want to criticize the way he's written, that's > very very valid. But it doesn't make him any better. He still is > terrible. Even if she makes him a doddering caricature of a person, > that's how she made him. He's a horrid little boy. Magpie: I am criticizing the way he's written. I also happen to be criticizing the way other things are written--and saying the way I took the scene. One's visceral reaction to Draco is subjective, and how angry one is at him in the scene is too. I started by basically agreeing with you about Draco, and I have agreed with your posts on the Slytherins in general. I disagreed about certain things in the scene and the way I see them--and I still do. Draco can still be a bad character for me without having this reaction to the Buckbeak storyline. Perhaps our only difference is that you dislike Draco and I don't, but is that really something to argue about? It seems like we've gotten into this big emotional area that can't be argued for no reason. > > Magpie: > > Gee, you mean like throwing a firecracker in a cauldron? I believe > > it was Crabbe and Goyle that suffered the consequences then. No big > > deal. But to answer your question, of course they'd suffer the > > consequences. Draco does here. I didn't disagree that Draco suffered > > the consequences of his own actions-that's why Buckbeak slashed him. > > That's also why he actually learns to listen in class later-- listen > > very carefully because he knows not to trust Hagrid to really put > > across the danger accurately. > > > > Prep0strus: > If Snape had caught Harry... whoo-boy, he would've been in trouble. > Just lucky to get away. But let's remember motivations as well. > Harry's motivation was a distraction so he could do something he felt > vital to defeating evil. Draco's motivation is that he's a nasty > little git. Magpie: I didn't compare anything about their characters in the scene, I just pointed out that kids goofing around in class is a pretty normal thing. I don't blame anybody else for Draco's not listening or for insulting the hyppogriff. I just don't think what he did in the scene with Buckbeak is so very surprising for a 13-year-old boy-- even one who wasn't the most repulsive thing in the universe. > > Magpie: Draco deserves > > it. Neville deserves a little patience. Draco made a deliberate > > mistake. Neville made an honest mistake. Even though they both could > > have basically done the same thing. Kids make mistakes. > > > > Prep0strus: > but draco DID deserve it. Neville DID make an honest mistake. Even > if Draco wasn't warned, what kind of a nasty little kid treats an > animal like that, no less a potentially dangerous animal? That's not > a 'mistake'. It's a deliberate, foolish action. > Magpie: As I've said before, lots of people would "treat an animal like that" imo. He's petting it and saying, "You aren't dangerous at all, are you, you big ugly brute." I think plenty of kids--even non-nasty ones--could do that and even consider it affectionate. I used to call my Kerry Blue "Fungus Face" when she needed a bath because her beard got a bit funky--it's an insult, but it was affectionate. However, I don't see why that doesn't make it a mistake. Neville is given instructions just like Draco is. Neville doesn't follow them even though he wants the Potion to turn out well. Draco follows instructions about bowing etc. Presumably he doesn't want to get attacked by the thing--he's a nervous nellie in general. But only Neville's mistake is honest and only Draco deserves it. > > Magpie: > > Funny, because I also find it one of the more sickening in the HP > > books, but for a slightly different reason. The Slytherins getting > > pleasure in Buckbeak being put down is one, but I'm also creeped out > > by Slytherin's being set up to do that in the first place. The > > author uses an animal created for the purpose of attacking him > > because he "deserves it" and then uses it as a springboard > > for "Please Don't Shoot My Dog!" casting the equally irresponsible > > teacher as the victim. Because Hagrid's not giving a damn about > > people getting hurt is kind of cute while the Slytherin's is clearly > > sick. It's all about whipping up that feeling about the Slytherins, > > isn't it. It's like the exact kind of sadistic attitude so > > disgusting in the Slytherins permeates the book and is given a > > totally righteous spin, which is why PoA is one of my least favorite > > books despite the great revelations in the Shack. > Prep0strus: > But Slytherin wasn't set up by anyone... except the author. Which is > not a 'setup' - it is a scene that shows the character of the characters. Magpie: Who I believe was the person I said set him up, didn't I? That's the whole point. Of course it's a set up--I'm discussing the way the whole scene/story is set up. I *agree* with you that canonically all the bad things people say about Slytherin are true, that they have earned their own bad reputation. I do not agree with the arguments that they are misunderstood, that there is anything much good there at all. I just also find this whole storyline in PoA as written unpleasant and strangely related to exactly what's unpleasant about Draco's own attitude. Prep0strus: > > Hagrid not giving a damn about people getting hurt is just plain > false, as we see in his quick actions to rescue Draco and get him to > the healer, as well as how upset he is later. > > "madam Pomfrey fixed him best she could," said hagrid dully, "but he's > sayin' it's still agony... covered in bandages...moanin'..." > > Hagrid cares a lot, and suffers way more throughout the incident than > Draco does. Draco suffers momentary pain, then he actually gets a > bonus out of it. Hagrid is in misery over thinking he hurt a child - > he does love teaching. he's worried about losing his job (possibly > appropriately, but the standards do seem very different at Hogwarts > than in RL). And he's heartbroken that Buckbeak might be killed for > acting as a hippogriff. Magpie: Because when Hagrid puts people in dangerous situations he doesn't mean it so it's kind of cute. Hagrid feels badly here *even when he shouldn't because it was all Draco's fault.* This is why this book in particular is one I don't like, though it points to what I found disappointing in the whole series. I should have actually known what was coming the way this worked out way back in Book III (no possibility for compromise here--Draco/Slytherin just must be stopped so the good guys can prevail!). Prep0strus:> > These classes are dangerous, these animals are dangerous. but the > Griffindors are right - it WAS a good lesson. A lesson these kids > SHOULD learn. Respect for these creatures, and everyone in class was > doing very well, following instructions and learning. Only Draco, > because he is a 'bad' kid has a problem. And that problem is easily > fixable with a trip to Pomfrey. Magpie: Yup, good thing it was Draco hurt, because being a "bad kid" the lesson can still be "a good lesson" even after it ended in disaster after a short time (Hagrid loves teaching!!). If only I could get on board with this attitude I'd probably have loved the book. Unfortunately, all I see is exactly what you're describing--the author creating a character to be a hate object, to never stop deserving punishment, so I should be feeling sorry for the poor students and Hagrid whose class was ruined. And since the whole book makes me dislike the wrong people, the very things Draco does that are objectively wrong that are supposed to horrify me don't bother me the way they should. I know Hagrid's pet's going to be fine and he's going to keep his job; I know Draco's not going to get what he wants. So while I see that JKR has created Draco to be 100% repulsive, I still spend the book disliking Hagrid and not angry at Draco at all. Don't much like Buckbeak either (though I didn't think he deserved to be executed). Prep0strus: He can't be 'set up' > any further than he wants to go. Magpie: Not sure what you mean by that. Draco does whatever the author tells him to do--in some cases even when I'm not sure what his motivation is. I think Draco's behaving completely repulsively in PoA as well (even though I still don't think he's that bad in the first lesson), but he still doesn't get my hatred. Prep0strus: > > Also, he ruined class for everybody for the rest of the semester. > Good job. (I know care of magical creatures wasn't anybody's favorite > class, but it would have been mine, and i'd be pissed to be stuck with > flobberworms) Magpie: And there's a big reason why my hatred goes elsewhere. Draco ruined the first class for everybody by getting hurt. And every other decision Hagrid makes in his class is also Draco's fault. No responsibilty for Hagrid at all (no surprise--this is the guy who sternly gives kids detention for saving his own a**). And here my entire life I've thought I wouldn't want to be a teacher because it was too much responsibility and controlling a bunch of adolescents who would know doubt include a few boys who challenge authority or show off would be a normal part of the job. So I hate this storyline. Don't like talking about it either, but am completely incapable of stopping myself whenever I read about that awful Malfoy boy in this scene (rather than the rest of the book). zgirnius: Apparently your idea of dramatic, and mine, differ...dramatically. In "The Battle of Hogwarts", the images of Draco dragging the unconscious Goyle away from the oncoming fire, and later, sitting high on the pile of desks with his arms wrapped protectively around his friend, were plenty dramatic enough for me. Magpie: Possibly! Only because I find your description of the actions here written more dramatically and heroically than I think they are in canon: "Malfoy grabbed the Stunned Goyle and dragged him along: Crabbe outstripped all of them, now looking terrified..." "And then he saw them: Malfoy with his arms around the unconscious Goyle, the pair of them perched on a fragile tower of charred desks, and Harry dived." It's Harry who sounds dramatically heroic here to me. -m (who never felt any connection to Slytherin the house at all until the final book, when they seemed so much like the Damned of this universe she perversely felt a kinship) From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 22:02:08 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:02:08 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: <004701c7f197$5458cd10$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176846 > Angel: > > > > Absolutely not!!! This was no defensive act on Hermione's part. It was no > preemptive. Who did she hope to defend by this trickery? No one that I > could see, Harry only got off because of Dumbledore's trickery. > > Lanval; Absolutely yes. It was desigend to warn the DA not only that they had been betrayed (granted, only if there was enough time, which in the actual event was not the cause), but also by *whom*. No one could have foreseen the precise way in which the betrayal took place. > Angel: > Hermione had no part in anyone's defence here. Defence would imply there > was a means to do something to protect everyone. Hermione's spell was > retribution pure and simple. If you told, you get scarred. There is no > liplock spell in action here to pre-empt telling. > > Lanval: Seems to that had the Marauders signed a similar contract, the small problem of exactly who went to Voldie and blabbed would not have existed. Hermione knew this tale, and learned from it. Liplock spell? Nice idea. For how long? A day? The end of the school year? Forever? Will it have to go hand in hand with a ...handlock spell? Because I'm pretty sure Marietta and every other student is able to write. Lanval, smiling at the thought of the sheer amount of angry responses here, had Marietta been struck mute and unable to write. > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > From rvink7 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 22:24:04 2007 From: rvink7 at hotmail.com (Renee) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:24:04 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew WAS: Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176847 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > > Renee: > > > And scarred for life? JKR says she had a few scars left at the > end. I know several people in RL with visible acne scars. They don't > look particularly bad and lead perfectly normal lives. > > > > > > Alla: > > > > I know such person really really well. > > Carol: > But, somehow, I'll bet that that person's acne scars don't spell out > SNEAK. Nor is it punishment for a crime that person doesn't remember > committing. > Renee: I can't for the life of me see how "a few scars" can spell out the entire word SNEAK. But I have to say I agree about the wiping of Marietta's memory. That only makes sense in terms of plot, not in terms of morality. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 7 22:44:00 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 22:44:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176848 > Magpie: > > It is stacking the deck for the reader, imo, because of how it > works. "The world" most certainly is conspiring against Draco just > as it often conspires against and then for Harry--Buckbeak has that > particular instinct to put him on a collision course with this > character. I'm talking here about the way the scene is set up, not > Draco's own pov of his own world. Within his pov them's the breaks. > (Just as the world conspires *with* Hagrid so that his particular > brand of anthropomorphizing/admiring animals makes him an expert.) Prep0strus: That much is fine, as your view of the world. The problem, as i see it, is... well, something I find very difficult to explain, and wind up mucking it up every time I try. it's the way of assigning blame to the author vs the characters. I think it's ok to assign blame to jkr for the world she has created, and to assign blame to the characters for their actions. But in my opinion, it doesn't make much sense to assign blame to the characters for the world - or to fail to assign blame because of the world. i will agree that the world is designed in such a way that jkr wants us to think that slytherins are bad. but taht doesn't change the fact that in the world she created slytherins ARE bad. Draco is not a victim, in any sense. He's a little monster. And he doesn't get to escape that blame from me simply because it's clear that JKR wants us to think he's bad and sets up situations to show us that. > > > > Magpie: > Yes, yes, yes, yes.:-) Perfectly acceptable in working with animal. > Nobody's talking about chimpanzees and baring your teeth. Petting an > animal while calling it a great ugly brute is something an > affectionate animal-lovers might certainly do, imo. What Draco is > doing is not "provoking an animal" in any real world sense--his tone > of voice might be positively soothing for all we know. It provokes > this fictional creature who's been created around this totally > fantastic quirk. (Which is why Draco's actions don't horrify me in > themselves in this scene.) > > > I can't imagine calling animal control on somebody ruffling their > Great Dane's ears and calling him a slobbery idiot, myself. Wonder > what one would be called if one took those same chimps and released > a dozen of them in a roomful of eighth graders after telling them > not to bare or it'd be the last thing they'd do and one of them lost > a finger when he smiled. Prep0strus: I think that's a pretty broad interpretation of the scene. I tend to doubt that anyone can read it the way you are purporting to, but I can't judge someone else for their opinion. However, i will say that as I read it, Draco is being nasty to the hippogriff. He is showing disrespect and arrogant disregard. I believe his body language and tone would reflect this, and not the joshing way you describe how one might deal with a big goofy pet. Not to mention it still ignores the specific instructions he received. The fantastic quirk of the creature does not bother me as it does you. Many fantastic creatures have quirks, in true mythology and in other fictional fantasy. And a I said from my memories of unicorns, animal reaction to human intent is not original at all. And what if the entire scene does exist just to show us again what a little tool Draco is? (Besides setting up the ending where the hippogriff helps in the escape). Well, that's... writing. If we took out all the scenes where JKR shows us that Draco is a horrible little boy, then we wouldn't see that Draco is a horrible little boy, and then... well, the story would be totally different. You may not like that she made him that way, but she did, and this scene was very much in character for him. And we've seen many ways in which the WW is a more wild and dangerous place than the real world, especially for children. And I think the other children clearly demonstrated that this was a safe exercise if you followed the instructions appropriately. Even in the real world, kids are asked to engage in potentially dangerous activity. You should pay attention to the saw in woodshop and the oven in home ec. Kids swim, ride horses, and take trips to the big bad city, and many dangers could befall them if they decide to act like arrogant gits instead of following appropriate directions. Hippogriffs are neither housepets, nor chimpanzees. They are something in between, which when dealt with appropriately, with caution and respect, represent no danger. Draco has no ability to do this, but I'm not going to fault anyone but him for that. > > > Magpie: > Yeah, I get that Draco broke the rules. I've never said he didn't. > The movie's portrayal in this case I mentioned to show that there's > nothing inherently violent or abusive in what Draco does in terms of > real world standards any more than there's anything inherently wrong > in Neville adding more than one spleen to his Potion. The movie is > also significant, imo, because I think they feel like they need to > make Hagrid look better and Draco worse to get the same emotion > without the narrator to guide the audience along. > Prep0strus: the difference is in attitude and intent. No, Draco did not hit buckbeak with a stick. But acting nastily towards an innocent creature has no place in any situation, and he deliberately disregarded the instructions given him. Neville messes up - mixes things wrong. If he could have done it right, he would have. Draco's mistake is deliberate and meanspirited. They are worlds apart. > Magpie: > I didn't mean Buckbeak had magical foresight, I meant Buckbeak's > created so that the way Draco sucks will get him a smack down that > he deserves. As you yourself say--Draco sucks even to animals. > That's what I get from the scene, and to me as a reader, I start > pulling against the author and start looking for the suck somewhere > else.:-) Prep0strus: I guess in this case I went with the author. It's clear to me that Draco DOES suck to the animals, and there's no reading that will make me think otherwise. I can certainly find a lot of suck in her writing, and in a lot of situations... but for this one, it's her and Draco. I can't find much suck in Buckbeak or Griffindors. > > Magpie: > Actually, all the teachers have to put up with this nonsense-- making > clear that they won't put up with it is part of a teacher's job. But > I don't know what this has to do with anything anyway. You say it > was only Draco, and yes, it was Draco. I have hard time thinking it > *couldn't* have been anyone else given the set up (especially > Neville, who was running around in a panic) and wind up thinking it > was Draco because the author made sure to create a creature whose > latin name might as well have been Targetus Draconis. Your emotional > reaction to this seemed to be "OMG, Draco is such a horrible child!" > Mine was, "I wish Hagrid would get eaten by something..." You focus > on how Draco's not listening was especially bad because the class > was so dangerous, while I think the class was stupidly dangerous. > Prep0strus: You're right that we view it differently. But not exactly in how I view it. Because I don't view Hagrid as that much outside the WW norm. And I don't think his 'not listening' was especially bad. His fault would be much less had he simply forgotten to bow - that would mean he had failed to listen to instructions. but he did listen to the instructions in order to take that step. I think he's such a horrible child not because he doesn't listen to instructions, but because of what he does. He is nasty to the innocent hippogriff for no reason. Then I think he's MORE horrible for what he does after - reneges his own culpability, makes others do his work for him, and attempts to have a creature he knows to be innocent KILLED. These are all very different from 'not listening'. As for the class, it seems like the rest of the class was having a great time. It was a wonderful lesson, and no one would have been hurt - not if Draco simply had listened, but if he wasn't an inherantly nasty child. > > Magpie: > He's right there, imo. But regardless I already agreed to this, that > he wasn't paying attention--and pointed out that all the students > have times when they don't pay attention, and it's only here where > it becomes a cardinal sin. (I mean, I know the idea is supposed to > be that it's extra stupid here because the animal is SO DANGEROUS > but it still sounds like more than that, like there's just zero > tolerance for something people and kids do all the time, and this is > the first day.) Even here --he's stupid for not listening for those > 10 seconds and yet is also teasing the creature because he didn't > believe what he didn't hear. How's he doing both? We see him > whispering in the moment Hagrid says this one thing, and we see him > following the directions he was listening to. If he didn't believe > Hagrid why'd he bow? I thought part of the burn on Draco was that he > thought he was in the clear and successful. > Prep0strus: I thought it was clear he HAD heard the instructions, followed them until his inherant arrogance and superiority took over, decided on his own that some dumb creature (either hagrid or the hippogriff) had stupid rules, and decidd to disregard them. He hears the instructions, and then disregards them. Showing arrogance and stupidity - and also nastiness, in how he disregards them. > Magpie: > If he was actually provoking this animal intentionally, he was > courageous (and more stupid)--he could have gotten himself killed! I > think he's just being arrogant and superior. I am arguing against > him being courageous here. Prep0strus: Because he has decided it's NOT dangerous. On his own. He heard the instructions, disregarded them, and then provoked buckbeak once he made his own determination that the rules were a crock. I don't think he's courageous either. > Magpie: > I am criticizing the way he's written. I also happen to be > criticizing the way other things are written--and saying the way I > took the scene. One's visceral reaction to Draco is subjective, and > how angry one is at him in the scene is too. I started by basically > agreeing with you about Draco, and I have agreed with your posts on > the Slytherins in general. I disagreed about certain things in the > scene and the way I see them--and I still do. Draco can still be a > bad character for me without having this reaction to the Buckbeak > storyline. Perhaps our only difference is that you dislike Draco and > I don't, but is that really something to argue about? It seems like > we've gotten into this big emotional area that can't be argued for > no reason. Prep0strus: This scene (and all the subsequent related scenes) also affect me as an animal lover and caretaker. Draco shows disrespect and stupidity in his dealings with Buckbeak, regardless of instructions. The fact that he ignores specific instructions just shows his arrogance and continued idiocy. But then the way buckbeak is supposed to be punished for DRACO'S thoughtless cruelty raises my rancor to a new level. > > Magpie: > I didn't compare anything about their characters in the scene, I > just pointed out that kids goofing around in class is a pretty > normal thing. I don't blame anybody else for Draco's not listening > or for insulting the hyppogriff. I just don't think what he did in > the scene with Buckbeak is so very surprising for a 13-year-old boy- - > even one who wasn't the most repulsive thing in the universe. Prep0strus: Maybe. Maybe. If we're assuming a stupid, mean boy. but the way he continues the charade to the point where buckbeak will be executed is entirely different. That is a death that would be on Draco's soul as surely as Dumbledore's would have been. it raises the level of o the debate to someting else. > > Magpie: > As I've said before, lots of people would "treat an animal like > that" imo. He's petting it and saying, "You aren't dangerous at all, > are you, you big ugly brute." I think plenty of kids--even non- nasty > ones--could do that and even consider it affectionate. I used to > call my Kerry Blue "Fungus Face" when she needed a bath because her > beard got a bit funky--it's an insult, but it was affectionate. > > However, I don't see why that doesn't make it a mistake. Neville is > given instructions just like Draco is. Neville doesn't follow them > even though he wants the Potion to turn out well. Draco follows > instructions about bowing etc. Presumably he doesn't want to get > attacked by the thing--he's a nervous nellie in general. But only > Neville's mistake is honest and only Draco deserves it. > Prep0strus: Like I said, I am unable to read the scene as him petting it in an affectionate way. It is not in character for Draco. IMO, he was being as nasty as the words imply. And there IS a difference between making a mistake and being nasty. There is no intent behind Neville - his mistake is akin to tripping over a log and falling down. Draco's mistake is akin to sticking his leg out and making someone else fall down. He doesn't make the mistake by forgetting to bow. he makes the mistake by being nasty to teh hippogriff. These things are so different. > > > Magpie: > Because when Hagrid puts people in dangerous situations he doesn't > mean it so it's kind of cute. Hagrid feels badly here *even when he > shouldn't because it was all Draco's fault.* This is why this book > in particular is one I don't like, though it points to what I found > disappointing in the whole series. I should have actually known what > was coming the way this worked out way back in Book III (no > possibility for compromise here--Draco/Slytherin just must be > stopped so the good guys can prevail!). Prep0strus: IMO, the kids were in no more danger than they usually were in a world of danger and surprise. And there is a difference when someone means to put someone in danger and when they don't. > > > Magpie: > Yup, good thing it was Draco hurt, because being a "bad kid" the > lesson can still be "a good lesson" even after it ended in disaster > after a short time (Hagrid loves teaching!!). If only I could get on > board with this attitude I'd probably have loved the book. > Unfortunately, all I see is exactly what you're describing--the > author creating a character to be a hate object, to never stop > deserving punishment, so I should be feeling sorry for the poor > students and Hagrid whose class was ruined. > > And since the whole book makes me dislike the wrong people, the very > things Draco does that are objectively wrong that are supposed to > horrify me don't bother me the way they should. I know Hagrid's > pet's going to be fine and he's going to keep his job; I know > Draco's not going to get what he wants. So while I see that JKR has > created Draco to be 100% repulsive, I still spend the book disliking > Hagrid and not angry at Draco at all. Don't much like Buckbeak > either (though I didn't think he deserved to be executed). > Prep0strus: I guess that's your perogotive, but it still seems strange to me to not be bothered by someone simply because you know you're supposed to be bothered by someone. It doesn't make his actions any more sypathetic or admirable. > > Magpie: > And there's a big reason why my hatred goes elsewhere. Draco ruined > the first class for everybody by getting hurt. And every other > decision Hagrid makes in his class is also Draco's fault. No > responsibilty for Hagrid at all (no surprise--this is the guy who > sternly gives kids detention for saving his own a**). And here my > entire life I've thought I wouldn't want to be a teacher because it > was too much responsibility and controlling a bunch of adolescents > who would know doubt include a few boys who challenge authority or > show off would be a normal part of the job. So I hate this > storyline. Don't like talking about it either, but am completely > incapable of stopping myself whenever I read about that awful Malfoy > boy in this scene (rather than the rest of the book). Prep0strus: I just don't see Hagrid as so far out of the norm of adults in this world. And I don't see that lesson as any more dangerous than any other lesson where kids need to pay attention or they might get hurt. And, in this case, it's not just paying attention... you just need to be not nasty. And Draco can't handle that. If Buckbeak had gotten executed, as the first death of the series (an animal leading up easier to Cedric) would your feelings change? Would the fact that there were consequences on the other side change your feelings? Because the intent was the same, whether he got away or not. I disagree with so much that JKR did, but it doesn't make me want to excuse what I see from Draco. we see a lot of intent. intent from draco in being nasty to buckbeak (he just didn't feel there really was a danger). trying to hurt harry in the game. we don't see intent from neville or hagrid. and there is a difference there. and draco got a quick injury, and then easy street for weeks. buckbeak almost got killed. i've worked with animals, and I've worked with kids, and this scenario doesn't seem like a little rapscallion joshing with a puppy who turns around and bites his head off. It's a blatent setup by jkr, but i buy into it, because it's in character for draco as we know him to be nasty, selfish, and disregard animals and people. Working for its death shows his disregard for life, which we already know because he wants to work for the people who killed the family members of so many other students. Yeah, she wants me to hate him, and yeah, i do. i'd have felt honored to bow to a hippogriff, and wish that draco had gotten his stupid little head clawed off for sticking me with flobberworms for the rest of the year. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Fri Sep 7 23:53:05 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2007 23:53:05 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176849 Lanval; > Absolutely yes. It was desigend to warn the DA not only that they > had been betrayed (granted, only if there was enough time, which in > the actual event was not the cause), but also by *whom*. No one > could have foreseen the precise way in which the betrayal took place. Ceridwen: The spell didn't warn the DA. The spell only told them who had broken peace. They were caught. They were dragged to Dumbledore's office. Their names were captured on the parchment hanging on the wall. They were not warned. They were alerted after the fact. Since we're going for superlatives where this incident is concerned, if my house catches on fire, I don't want the alarms going off as the fire department is leaving. Lanval: *(snip)* > Liplock spell? Nice idea. For how long? A day? The end of the school > year? Forever? Will it have to go hand in hand with a ...handlock > spell? Because I'm pretty sure Marietta and every other student is > able to write. > > Lanval, smiling at the thought of the sheer amount of angry > responses here, had Marietta been struck mute and unable to > write. Ceridwen: How about a spell that makes it impossible for the person to divulge the secret? I think there *might* be an obscure spell in canon which allows this, and I'm pretty sure that - in the middle of *HP & The Order of the Phoenix*, whose headquarters is protected by such a spell, which was introduced at the beginning of this same book - Hermione just *may* have heard of it by the time the students meet at the Hog's Head to form the DA halfway through this book. Ceridwen. From zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 00:06:09 2007 From: zeldaricdeau at yahoo.com (zeldaricdeau) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:06:09 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176850 > > zeldaricdeau: > > > How do we objectively determine > > who deserves what? > Eggplant: > You do the best you can. You don't really expect me to give a more > detailed answer than that do you; philosophers have been arguing > about that for thousands of years. zeldaricdeau: No, I don't expect anyone to answer that, but I assume you must have SOME sort of answer since you believe (to my understanding) that Marietta deserved what she got and Burbage did not. Therefore, you must have your own idea of an objective code of morality/ethics at work in your reading. > > zeldaricdeau: > > I don't believe that, at the time, > > Marietta was involved in an actual war > Eggplant: > Dumbledore called it a war, Harry called it a war, and the > organization she betrayed was called Dumbledore's ARMY. zeldaricdeau: It's been several years since I read the book and I only read it once, so I'm willing to accept I may be misremembering, but if Dumbledore or Harry told Marietta that she was participating in a war against Umbridge and the Ministry (and when I say "war" I mean of the kind we see in Deathly Hallows) then I missed it. I assume she, like me, interpreted the name "Dumbledore's Army" as not completely literal. > > zeldaricdeau: > > and I certainly don't think she saw > > herself as being involved in one. > Eggplant: > Then she was dead wrong and when you make an error of that colossal > magnitude you can expect to pay a price. zeldaricdeau: I generally don't think people should be consciously punished for being wrong in the face of large amounts of information that corroborates their beliefs. If that were the case, then everyone in the books, including Harry, has a lot of punishment facing them as they've all been guilty of being wrong, sometimes with extreme consequences. Of course, you see Marietta as being aware of certain things that I don't, and (correct me if I'm wrong) you don't believe that the influence of her family/the WW equivalent of the mass media should be taken into account in examining her motives/actions. The point of the post was to consider, firstly, how a "lasting physical effects" guideline for Dark Magic affected Hermione's hex, and secondly to question whether the punishment in Marietta's case fit the crime. You see Marietta as being guilty of (and correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm drawing from a lot of different post) breaking a contract, treason, either extreme and unjustified ignorance or a desire to bring extreme punishment including physical harm to her fellow classmates and close friend, and either conscious or unconscious support of Voldemort. You also say, in another post, that Marietta brought about the death of Sirius Black (I can only assume you mean in a very indirect manner). On the other hand, I consider Marietta's crime to be breach of contract and betrayal of the DA. Any further crimes, IMO, depend on what her motivations were and what knowledge she had of how Unbridge operated. As I said, it's been a while since I read OotP and I only read it once (yet it's my favorite of the books--go figure), but my recollection is that her status as traitor was exposed, but the reasons for it were not. And as for what she knew of Umbridge, again there seems to be mixed opinions and my recollection may be shaky, but I was under the impression that she believed that Umbridge was strict and that punishment wouldn't be nice, but that she was unaware of to what lengths that punishment would go. As for how this relates to Hermione and her hex, I still don't see Hermione's hex as a particularly impressive moment for her. While the hex would have had the effect of alerting HRH to an act of betrayal and the identity of the betrayer, it would only do so if and when they saw the traitor or heard about someone else who saw the traitor. The fact that the spell doesn't, for example, write the name of the traitor on a sheet of paper in Hermione's pocket but physically punishes the culprit tells me that the spell wasn't really just intended to notify the trio but to punish. It doesn't work as a deterrent (no one knows about it), it doesn't work that well as an alarm (you have to see the traitor or hear about the traitor to know), and it causes effects that aren't directly related to *helping* HRH but only to punishing the culprit. Was Hermione wrong to want to punish a culprit regardless of who that person was or under what circumstances they broke the contract? Maybe so, maybe not. I don't like what Marietta did in the least, especially as someone "in the know" who knew for a fact that Harry was right, Voldemort had returned, and the Ministry was endangering the WW. But I'm not convinced yet that from Marietta's end she had any inkling or should be expected to have any inkling of what was really going on. And I don't believe that if she didn't have any inkling she deserves to be punished for it. Personally, I think the hex was extreme of Hermione: I'm not a fan of retribution for retribution's sake in MOST cases. It doesn't make me dislike Hermione--she's my second favorite character--and I certainly don't expect or want her to be a saint! But add to it the "permanent" nature of the punishment and I am made rather uncomfortable and do feel an inkling of sympathy for Marietta, traitor or not. I'm starting to believe this really does come back to a schism between my own ideology and JKR's. I've stayed out of the discussion of JKR and her portrayal of Slytherin. I don't feel as qualified to speak about it because my canon knowledge isn't as solid. But the more I read the more wary I become of what JKR has written. I love the books dearly, but I've always gotten a sense of unease while reading them that I could never pinpoint, and I'm starting to think it was my gut telling me that there's something going on with the ideology of these books that is contradicting itself and at odds with my own. The latter is to be expected of course, but the former is troubling. -ZR (who generally never gets responses to her posts and had no idea that this one would lead to such a discussion!) From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 8 00:15:29 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 00:15:29 -0000 Subject: Fred and George and Karma and Marietta and dark magic, oh my In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176851 > > Magpie: > Last I looked, it wasn't karmic at all. Fred dies a hero killed by DEs > and George loses his brothers and an ear to same. For it to come > across as karma it has to be tied to their own actions and be ironic > in some way. Pippin: The DE's are there because the Carrows told Voldemort that Harry was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, (though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in, and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty ironic and connected enough for me. Hermione *does* consider Montague's fate a bad thing -- she's worried about him, and wonders if they should tell someone what happened. If she had, then someone might have discovered the cabinet problem. Actually, Karmic Justice isn't my favorite term for what JKR is up to. Dumbledore unambiguously rejected the notion that Sirius deserved what he got, and yet he clearly saw it as connnected to Sirius's actions. I think "poetic consequences" might be better. In RL, people don't necessarily *deserve* the consequences of their actions. If you jump from a building, you aren't going to die because you deserve to, you're going to die because jumping off buildings is dangerous. Sirius didn't die because he deserved to, he died because underestimating your inferiors is dangerous. In RL, if you betray a trust, that's dangerous. You can't expect everyone to be as forgiving about it as Cho was. Hermione's a good person, but she's not a saint. It'd be awfully preachy if JKR had to hit us over the head with it every time Hermione acted like a self-righteous show off. It's not as if we don't know those are her faults. In the greater context of the books, Harry being impressed by Hermione's jinxing ability is hardly a ringing endorsement. Being impressively good at punishing people is not held up anywhere else as something he admires. Cho calls him on his partisanship, and she's quite right, IMO. The way I see it one can enjoy the jinx as cartoon violence by a cartoon heroine if you like that sort of thing, but if you read it as realistic violence, then it's only going to make sense if you read Hermione as realistic too, and don't make her out to be JKR's idea of a flawless role model. Harry certainly doesn't see Hermione that way, even if in this case he admires her a little too much. There hasn't been consistent teaching of DADA at Hogwarts for two generations. The kids have probably been exposed to as many theoretical definitions of dark magic as we have, and they're no doubt just as much at a loss. I think if you asked Harry, he'd say that there are some things no decent human being should do to another, and then, if he was being honest, he'd add that there were times when he didn't give a tin sickle for decency. I felt, when Harry did the crucio, the way Harry did when he found out what sectum sempra did: "as if a beloved pet had suddenly turned savage." But pets, even the most loving, best trained pets, may turn savage if they're mistreated or if their protective instincts take over. I think JKR really tries to show that when people in her world turn savage there's a reason for it, it's not because they're black hats who were created to set a bad example for the rest of us. Pippin From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 00:39:53 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 17:39:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709071739u6ea62509gfcfe5d2ce959cccd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176852 Lynda: I don't think courage is hereditary? I don't I think its a product of situations people are put in, training people are given and individual choices to do the right thing. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 8 01:49:48 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 01:49:48 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176853 > Carol: > Exactly. *Buy into.* Yes, Mulciber becomes a Death eater who > specializes in the Imperius Curse, but what did he *try* to use > against Lily's friend Mary McDonald? We're not told, much less > shown. We're just supposed to take Lily's word that it's Dark magic > and "evil" and Mulciber is "creepy" (DH Am ed. 673-74). What makes > Mulciber "evil" and James merely an arrogant, bullying "toerag"? And > how does Lily know that something Mulciber *tried* (and failed) to > do is "Dark magic"? (I'm not criticizing Lily, folks. I'm > criticizing JKR.) Jen: The problem here is JKR's objective for Harry. She intends Harry to see Snape as trustworthy via the Pensieve memories, which means Harry never really sees why Snape become a DE in the first place! The memories circle around any bad deeds without actually showing the acts or consequences. I'm not trying to bring Snape down, more to explain what I see as the gap in JKR depicting her intended 'bad' characters (with Snape as a redemptive bad guy). There's very little shown in the Pensieve memories to get me from point A: Severus the seemingly nice enough young guy heading off to Hogwarts with his friend Lily, to point B: Snape the Death Eater. Snape being attracted to other DEs and calling other Muggleborns 'Mudbloods' - those are clues to his story. If he really became a DE as his Dark Mark proves, then he was thinking like a budding DE already. Muggleborns were inferior with one exception made for Lily, and he found whatever Mulciber was doing that Lily termed 'evil' and 'creepy' to be funny. Not to rehash points already debated on this thread, but I haven't thrown out Sirius saying, 'Snape knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year and he was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters.' (GOF, chap. 27, p. 461, UK ed.) The second part of this statement is corroborated by Lily in the memories, and the first part has some back-up with the invention of his own dark curse, Sectumsempra, and the memory of Snape as 'a greasy-haired teenager [sitting] alone in a dark bedroom, pointing his wand at the ceiling, shooting down flies....' (OOTP, chap. 26, p. 521, UK ed.) Granted, I don't know that killing flies is a bad thing in Potterverse, but he's a character who's going to be a DE, depicted 'shooting them down' and not stunning or something else. I assume he's killing flies, which as far as I know means he was practicing an AK. (The bucking broomstick memory could corroborate either Snape knowing curses or Snape as picked-on kid, both part of his story.) I wish that JKR had made Snape's trajectory very clear by showing all his acts in plain view so a real judgement could be made. Her choice seems to cast an unsavory shadow on Lily as the narrator of Snape's story and also throws doubt on the Marauder's observations about Snape as someone attracted to and dabbling in dark arts. I don't think DH is meant to toss out the past though, only to widen the scope of Snape's story. Jen From bawilson at citynet.net Sat Sep 8 01:49:59 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:49:59 -0400 Subject: Dark Magic Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176854 Rowena, the whole point about ghosts is that they are unwilling or unable to repent; that is why they are ghosts--they cannot move beyond whatever evils they did or whatever goods they did not do. 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 Sat Sep 8 01:54:51 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:54:51 -0400 Subject: Imperio Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176855 Laura: "By that reasoning, Hermione's modification of her parents memories is also Unforgiveable. She does it with the best of intentions, but she doesn't give them a choice, the effect would have been permanent had she died, and she robbed them of one of the most important part of their lives - their Daughter" How do we know that she gave them no choice in the matter? She may have sat them down and given them a complete breakdown of the situation and her proposed course of action, using the old clich? (and a clich? is so because it has a kernel of truth) that "what you do not know you cannot be made to reveal." They may well have consented. How do we know that it was not so, or why do we automatically assume the most sinister interpretation of her actions? 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 dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 02:19:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:19:03 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176856 > Ceridwen: > The spell didn't warn the DA. The spell only told them who had > broken peace. They were caught. They were dragged to Dumbledore's > office. Their names were captured on the parchment hanging on the > wall. They were not warned. They were alerted after the fact. > Since we're going for superlatives where this incident is concerned, > if my house catches on fire, I don't want the alarms going off as the > fire department is leaving. Alla: I judge the spell how IMO it was supposed to work and IMO it was supposed to work quite fine. I said it many times before I would certainly prefer Hermione figuring out the jinx that would not allow traitor to speak **at all**, but I disagree that disallowing the traitor to do it over and over was a good idea as well. I agree with Lanval, seems that Hermione learned from Pettigrew story to me. Yeah, you do not want alarm going off as the fire department as leaving, but fire can happen only once, if god forbid it will happen with disastrous consequences) Second time there would be no house to burn, it will be already burned out. What if the alarm goes off when **some sort of damage** is done already, but you can still save a part of your belongings? Would you not prefer that to alarm not going off at all? > Ceridwen: > How about a spell that makes it impossible for the person to divulge > the secret? I think there *might* be an obscure spell in canon which > allows this, and I'm pretty sure that - in the middle of *HP & The > Order of the Phoenix*, whose headquarters is protected by such a > spell, which was introduced at the beginning of this same book - > Hermione just *may* have heard of it by the time the students meet at > the Hog's Head to form the DA halfway through this book. Alla: You mean Secret Keeper? Or something different? How would that even work? Don't DA has to go in deep hiding for that? JKR could not be consistent for bigger occasions to use Secret Keeper Spell, I would imagine she did not want to do it for DA, if for nothing else but not to downplay its significance in the series. IMO of course. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 8 02:18:55 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:18:55 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176857 > > Magpie: > > > > > It is stacking the deck for the reader, imo, because of how it > > works. "The world" most certainly is conspiring against Draco just > > as it often conspires against and then for Harry--Buckbeak has that > > particular instinct to put him on a collision course with this > > character. I'm talking here about the way the scene is set up, not > > Draco's own pov of his own world. Within his pov them's the breaks. > > (Just as the world conspires *with* Hagrid so that his particular > > brand of anthropomorphizing/admiring animals makes him an expert.) > > Prep0strus: > That much is fine, as your view of the world. The problem, as i see > it, is... well, something I find very difficult to explain, and wind > up mucking it up every time I try. it's the way of assigning blame > to the author vs the characters. I think it's ok to assign blame to > jkr for the world she has created, and to assign blame to the > characters for their actions. But in my opinion, it doesn't make > much sense to assign blame to the characters for the world - or to > fail to assign blame because of the world. Magpie: But that's the thing--I'm doing both, but I'm trying to keep them separate. In this one scene it maybe seems like they're intersecting because I don't side against Draco, but that's just the one scene. Like, I blame the author for the general dislike I have of the whole storyline as a whole. I can agree that Draco is completely wrong in the way he responds to his screw up in class, imo. I just don't identify with the characters' own anger about it. So the author's failed to get me enjoying the story. It's not like I think that Draco is really the big victim here--if he was a good person he'd have gotten hurt, gone to the nurse, and gone on with the class--just as he does when he gets stuff splashed on him in Snape's class. He takes the antidote and gets on with the class. However, in the isolated scene where he gets attacked by Buckbeak I don't assign him all the blame, because that's just how I read the scene--and yes, this maybe does have to do with a view of the world. No matter how many times I read it, Draco comes across as a cocky, obnoxious kid acting completely within reasonably expected limits of behavior as a student in that class, while Hagrid sends up far more many red flags as incompetent. So when it comes to Draco wanting the animal killed--yeah, that's horrible. (In the real world people are often furious and scared and angry when they get attacked by peoples' animals, and sometimes do demand they be put down--but that's not what we're seeing here. Draco seems to be just pure malice.) But within this scene I just don't think he's that out of control. So I do think he's a victim in that scene, full stop. The fact that he didn't seem to like the aniaml doesn't make me furious at him. Hagrid does get blame for me in that scene. If I was a member of the class no matter how much I hated Draco Malfoy I would still never trust Hagrid with my safety. And I don't admire our heroes at all for saying how Draco deserved it before he's done any of the nasty things later and his blood's still wet on the grass. It's Malfoy--it's his own fault, we have no sympathy, he deserved it is what the heroes say in a moment where I don't agree with them. > Prep0strus: > I think that's a pretty broad interpretation of the scene. I tend to > doubt that anyone can read it the way you are purporting to, but I > can't judge someone else for their opinion. However, i will say that > as I read it, Draco is being nasty to the hippogriff. He is showing > disrespect and arrogant disregard. I believe his body language and > tone would reflect this, and not the joshing way you describe how one > might deal with a big goofy pet. Not to mention it still ignores the > specific instructions he received. Magpie: Which way do you mean? Because I didn't say that I thought Draco was being affectionate to Buckbeak. I just said that his behavior, by real world standards, is not in any way provoking or abusive to an animal. So I can't have some sort of visceral reaction to the scene as if Draco's just hurt the thing. prep0strus: > And what if the entire scene does exist just to show us again what a > little tool Draco is? (Besides setting up the ending where the > hippogriff helps in the escape). Well, that's... writing. If we > took out all the scenes where JKR shows us that Draco is a horrible > little boy, then we wouldn't see that Draco is a horrible little boy, > and then... well, the story would be totally different. You may not > like that she made him that way, but she did, and this scene was very > much in character for him. Magpie: I don't disagree that it's in character for him. I've never disagreed that he's a little tool and a horrible little boy. But my objectively seeing that he's a horrible little tool still doesn't make me hate him in this book, or feel worried for Hagrid and our heroes in being victimized by him. I'm still always on Draco's side in the over- arching Draco vs. Hagrid war. As in character as it is for Draco to mouth of in class, it's in character for Hagrid to be the annoying person he is to me in this book too. Of the two characters I think Hagrid is the better person, and yet Draco's the one I root for. And in this particular incident I think Hagrid's far more in the wrong. It may actually be the only scene in canon where I think Draco's not the one most in the wrong, actually, but there it is. Part of being a teacher is making sure instructions that are that important are going to be followed. prep0strus: Even in the real world, > kids are asked to engage in potentially dangerous activity. You > should pay attention to the saw in woodshop and the oven in home ec. > Kids swim, ride horses, and take trips to the big bad city, and many > dangers could befall them if they decide to act like arrogant gits > instead of following appropriate directions. Magpie: And somebody who ran their class like Hagrid would be fired, imo. Kids learn dangers may befall them if they act like arrogant gits instead of following appropriate directions (probably often through accidents, because teenagers often are arrogant gits who don't follow appropriate directions--hello, Marauders. Following those appropriate directions to not let the werewolf loose are we? No? Well, that's being 15 for ya! Do you dislike them for that?). Adults learn that you're responsible for all the kids in your class and if one of them gets hurt you will be called to answer for it and if you ran your first class the way Hagrid did you might get sued. > Prep0strus: > > the difference is in attitude and intent. No, Draco did not hit > buckbeak with a stick. But acting nastily towards an innocent > creature has no place in any situation, and he deliberately > disregarded the instructions given him. Neville messes up - mixes > things wrong. If he could have done it right, he would have. > Draco's mistake is deliberate and meanspirited. They are worlds > apart. Magpie: To me, he was cocky and said something sullen. (And I think he didn't hear that particular *very sloppily expressed* instruction.) Where you look at Draco's behavior and see it as so very bad, I look at Hagrid's see the same thing--and any description of responsible riding instructors etc. just proves my point to me. I think the scene is set up with Hagrid's incompetenence setting the scene for what happened. Draco can be an obnoxious student who was taught a lesson by *Buckbeak* but Hagrid remains to me the annoying spoiled baby teacher given a job *he* doesn't deserve because he's tight with the headmaster. > Prep0strus: > > I guess in this case I went with the author. It's clear to me that > Draco DOES suck to the animals, and there's no reading that will make > me think otherwise. I can certainly find a lot of suck in her > writing, and in a lot of situations... but for this one, it's her and > Draco. I can't find much suck in Buckbeak or Griffindors. Magpie: And I find that Buckbeak and the Gryffindors do suck in this scene, very much so. But it's foolish to think there's any reading that will convince either of us to have a different emotional reaction than we did the first time. You hate Draco, I hate Hagrid. We naturally both think of this scene as exactly why we can't stand the character. That's why when I originally replied I just mentioned in passing that I didn't read the scene the same way, but went on to agree with your basic point. Beyond that we're both just seemingly projecting our own personal experiences on different moments in the scene. It's not like I approve of kids saying mean things to animals. I think Draco should have been called out for doing it. But of course, if I were running the class Draco would have probably had to repeat all the important instructions before he approached the animal under my individual instruction. I would have probably started with a whole discussion of what was an insult and exactly how hippogriffs reacted and why, and what they would do to you. The class rather depends on Hagrid just wanting it to be really fun, and spending most of his time making the hippogriffs seem more friendly by doing stuff like sticking Harry on it and slapping its behind. It's a well- established character trait of Hagrid's that his perception of the danger of animals is off. (Later it's "Of course they're not dangerous--well, they'll take a piece out of you if you annoy 'em but...") Obviously with me as the teacher, there'd be no story. With McGonagall or Grubbly-Plank as teacher there'd have been no story. The storyline needs Hagrid's problems as well as Draco's. > Prep0strus: > You're right that we view it differently. But not exactly in how I > view it. Because I don't view Hagrid as that much outside the WW > norm. And I don't think his 'not listening' was especially bad. > His fault would be much less had he simply forgotten to bow - that > would mean he had failed to listen to instructions. but he did > listen to the instructions in order to take that step. I think he's > such a horrible child not because he doesn't listen to instructions, > but because of what he does. He is nasty to the innocent hippogriff > for no reason. Then I think he's MORE horrible for what he does > after - reneges his own culpability, makes others do his work for > him, and attempts to have a creature he knows to be innocent KILLED. > These are all very different from 'not listening'. Magpie: I have the same view of his actions *afterwards* as you do (though I don't feel emotionally involved in them). I'm still not that bothered by his "big ugly brute" comment because he will just always sound like he's just showing off to me than trying to be particularly nasty to the animal. But afterwards, well, of course. There's nothing good about his playing up his injury or saying he wants the animal put down. There he's being a nasty kid whose motivation is being malicious to others. It's only in the scene where he's actually slashed where I just am not very horrified by his actions. prep0strus: > As for the class, it seems like the rest of the class was having a > great time. It was a wonderful lesson, and no one would have been > hurt - not if Draco simply had listened, but if he wasn't an > inherantly nasty child. Magpie: Meh. To me the lesson reads as Hagrid wanting to be Mr. Fun and so going for a creature he thinks is fun, he breezes over boring stuff like making sure the danger is clear to everyone etc. in favor of flying on it, and then he just lets everybody loose so that they'll all have that great time you say makes the lesson so great. To me the fact that somebody got hurt is a no-brainer given that set-up, and given that set up blaming the kid--no matter how unlikable the kid is- -just feels all kind of wrong to me. Wrong in a way Hagrid often is. (Luckily, to give JKR credit, the kids in canon actually don't seem to side with Hagrid on this kind of thing in later years, however much of a great time you feel they were having.) > Prep0strus: > I thought it was clear he HAD heard the instructions, followed them > until his inherant arrogance and superiority took over, decided on > his own that some dumb creature (either hagrid or the hippogriff) had > stupid rules, and decidd to disregard them. He hears the > instructions, and then disregards them. Showing arrogance and > stupidity - and also nastiness, in how he disregards them. Magpie: And I think the opposite, that he didn't hear the instructions, based on the stuff I cited: Draco is whispering right when Hagrid says that line about insulting, and Draco's a coward who generally seems pretty aware of his own well-being. In fifth year there's even a joke where Draco thinks he's missed an instruction and asks what Hagrid said in case it's dangerous. This may be central to how we view responsibility in the scene, but to be honest even if I thought he just didn't believe Hagrid, that still goes partially back to Hagrid to me, because even before anything happens I think Hagrid does a dreadful job indicating the danger and what not to do. He's really handicapped in that area. > > > > Magpie: > > If he was actually provoking this animal intentionally, he was > > courageous (and more stupid)--he could have gotten himself killed! > I > > think he's just being arrogant and superior. I am arguing against > > him being courageous here. > > > Prep0strus: > Because he has decided it's NOT dangerous. On his own. He heard the > instructions, disregarded them, and then provoked buckbeak once he > made his own determination that the rules were a crock. I don't > think he's courageous either. Magpie: Neither of us know what's in Draco's head so neither version is canon. I understand your reading, I appreciate your explaining how you read the scene, but that's all we're doing in that case is giving our different versions of what we think is happening in the scene. I think my way's more straightforward with what I can see in the scene. > Prep0strus: > This scene (and all the subsequent related scenes) also affect me as > an animal lover and caretaker. Draco shows disrespect and stupidity > in his dealings with Buckbeak, regardless of instructions. The fact > that he ignores specific instructions just shows his arrogance and > continued idiocy. But then the way buckbeak is supposed to be > punished for DRACO'S thoughtless cruelty raises my rancor to a new > level. Magpie: Well, I'm an animal-lover, but this storyline leaves me cold. I see all the same things in the later stuff that you do, that it's cruel to demand that the animal be killed. But I don't feel it at all the way I do in many other stories or real life things. I don't have the kind of visceral reaction to the idea of the animal having anything done to it in all this scene. Unfortunately, as I said, for me it's blotted out by the icky vibes of the same kind of cruelty coming from the story as is coming from the Draco. And in general Hagrid is the one that tends to ping my personal buttons about irresponsible treatment of animals as well. Buckbeak's impending execution never comes across to me as something that's going to happen at all, and it also never comes across as any emotional priority for Harry himself, since he seems angry about it mostly on the Hagrid principle. > > Magpie: > > I didn't compare anything about their characters in the scene, I > > just pointed out that kids goofing around in class is a pretty > > normal thing. I don't blame anybody else for Draco's not listening > > or for insulting the hyppogriff. I just don't think what he did in > > the scene with Buckbeak is so very surprising for a 13-year-old boy- > - > > even one who wasn't the most repulsive thing in the universe. > > Prep0strus: > Maybe. Maybe. If we're assuming a stupid, mean boy. but the way he > continues the charade to the point where buckbeak will be executed is > entirely different. That is a death that would be on Draco's soul as > surely as Dumbledore's would have been. it raises the level of o the > debate to someting else. Magpie: To me it doesn't even seem to require a particularly mean boy since as I said, to me he seems to be showing off in the scene more than anything. I just don't feel that much malice towards Buckbeak. My problem with the story is it feels like something shallowly sentimental that's supposed to press sure-fire buttons that make me go "Awww" because I'm an animal lover, but I feel like it's slapped on top of a story that's not very kind at all. You say Draco is a monstrous child and I rather agree--but Hagrid's got his monsters he sees something good in when nobody else does and I've got mine. > Prep0strus: > Like I said, I am unable to read the scene as him petting it in an > affectionate way. It is not in character for Draco. IMO, he was > being as nasty as the words imply. And there IS a difference between > making a mistake and being nasty. There is no intent behind Neville - > his mistake is akin to tripping over a log and falling down. > Draco's mistake is akin to sticking his leg out and making someone > else fall down. He doesn't make the mistake by forgetting to bow. > he makes the mistake by being nasty to teh hippogriff. These things > are so different. Magpie: Just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that Draco is being affectionate. I'm saying that the physical actions that he is doing in the scene are in no way abusive to me. And since I think that Draco's mistake is very much like tripping over a log and falling down, I don't think it's different than Neville--except that Draco's being obnoxious at the time. Draco doesn't forget to bow because, imo, he heard that as the instructions and he's trying to follow the instructions because he doesn't want to be eaten. He would, imo, have not insulted if he had heard that might be "the last thing he did." Just as Neville would put in only one spleen if he knew that was right, because Neville doesn't want his Potion to blow up, and Draco doesn't want to get ripped apart by an animal. > Prep0strus: > I guess that's your perogotive, but it still seems strange to me to > not be bothered by someone simply because you know you're supposed to > be bothered by someone. It doesn't make his actions any more > sypathetic or admirable. Magpie: I can't explain it, but that was my honest reaction to the book--and I'm not alone. Draco's my favorite character in the series even though he turned out to be a dud imo. I've read plenty of books where I disliked a character because I felt like the author wanted me to like them--or at least, that exacerbated my dislike. That happens all the time when people read. I did a thing once where I asked people to list the characters they hated most in fiction and most of them had some element of the author presenting the character as an obviously admirable person. The same works in reverse--have you really never had that experience? Draco was like the Wile E. Coyote of the Potterverse for so long I totally rooted for him. (Also I love him in most CoMC classes.) > Prep0strus: > If Buckbeak had gotten executed, as the first death of the series (an > animal leading up easier to Cedric) would your feelings change? > Would the fact that there were consequences on the other side change > your feelings? Because the intent was the same, whether he got away > or not. Magpie: Perhaps. I don't think the character could have really recovered from actually causing the death of an animal. But at the same time I think death was a totally unreal thing for Draco so I don't think the intent was the same. In all the first five books there's something about Draco and death where he thinks it's cool, but in the end, when he sees the reality, he actually doesn't think so. So I don't think it's actually part of his character to wish death on peoples' pets or other people now that death is a reality. (Of course if Buckbeak had been killed he would still have been responsible for it and that would have changed the character, just as it would have changed Ginny if she'd killed someone in CoS.) prep0strus: > i'd have felt honored to bow to a hippogriff, and wish that draco had > gotten his stupid little head clawed off for sticking me with > flobberworms for the rest of the year. Magpie: See, while I would have bowed to the hippogriff too (which Draco does) I am very bothered by the idea that Draco got anybody stuck with flobberworms. To me, that's all about Hagrid's personality and limits as a teacher--as is his setting things up so that something was going to happen. Hagrid's career as a teacher to me reflects Hagrid 100% and not Draco. And just as none of this would have happened if Draco hadn't done what he did, well, same with Hagrid. Hagrid's problems as a teacher are a mild irritation for Harry even when he tries to ignore them. If I were a student I don't think I don't think I'd blame Draco as much as Hagrid. I might have thought Draco was awful in the first class and been mad at him for a while, but I think I would quickly realize, if I hadn't already thought it, that oh no, the trouble is having a bad teacher. Hagrid is, imo, a teacher bad unlike other teachers in a way that reflects him as a character in general. Pippin: The DE's are there because the Carrows told Voldemort that Harry was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, (though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in, and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty ironic and connected enough for me. Magpie: Really? To me that's far too convuluted to come up with it being karmic. I think Fred dies a hero fighting for the school, period, and the Carrows being there has barely anything to do with the Vanishing Cabinets much less what they did. It's nowhere in the same galaxy as ironic or connected enough for it to feel like karma to me. If felt more just like more proof that This Book Is Dark Because Beloved Characters Die! to me. -m From lanval1015 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 02:28:10 2007 From: lanval1015 at yahoo.com (lanval1015) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 02:28:10 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176858 > Lanval; > > Absolutely yes. It was desigend to warn the DA not only that they > > had been betrayed (granted, only if there was enough time, which in > > the actual event was not the cause), but also by *whom*. No one > > could have foreseen the precise way in which the betrayal took > place. > > Ceridwen: > The spell didn't warn the DA. The spell only told them who had > broken peace. They were caught. They were dragged to Dumbledore's > office. Their names were captured on the parchment hanging on the > wall. They were not warned. They were alerted after the fact. > Since we're going for superlatives where this incident is concerned, > if my house catches on fire, I don't want the alarms going off as the > fire department is leaving. > Lanval: Well, that's what I wrote, isn't it? :) It was only *designed* to warn the DA in a potential (and wholly plausible) Peter Pettigrew scenario. That it did not work out that way, that actual events have a way of throwing in a surprise or two, rendering all careful planning moot -- well, that's something every designer of security systems, every disaster recovery team, every military commander has a story about. One can blame Hermione for not thinking through ALL possible scenarios, I suppose. But how does the failure of Hermione's security plan mean that there can never have been one to begin with? Because that's what I understood the former poster, Angel, to be arguing. That it was all about revenge. No one, AFAIK, has ever argued that revenge was entirely absent from Hermione's mind, but why does the other (major, IMO) aspect -- security -- have to be discredited? Especially since it is supported by canon. A mere couple of days after the Hog's Head meeting, Educational Decree Number 24 is posted, forbidding all student organizing of any sort unless approved by the "High Inquisitor". Harry right away suspects they have been found out; someone has talked. Ron -- and this is extremely important! -- immediately starts to name names, *wrongly*!!! accusing Zach Smith and Michael Corner of snitching. And punches his fist into his hand. And calls Hermione 'naive' for not doing the same. OotP, Scholastic Ed. p.352: "No, they can't have done because I put a jinx on that piece of parchment we all signed," said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." End quote. So how can anyone say that it didn't work? The jinx may not have protected all the DA members when the actual betrayal happened, because Umbridge, assisted by her odious little helpers, reacted with impressive speed. But up to that day, the *absence* of pustules on any DA member's face lets Hermione and Harry rest a bit easier at night, and keeps Ron from ripping Michael Corner's head off. Reason one, given in canon by the author of the jinx: security. Reason two: revenge. Unless of course anyone wants to assume that Hermione is lying. > > Lanval, smiling at the thought of the sheer amount of angry > > responses here, had Marietta been struck mute and unable to > > write. > > Ceridwen: > How about a spell that makes it impossible for the person to divulge > the secret? I think there *might* be an obscure spell in canon which > allows this, and I'm pretty sure that - in the middle of *HP & The > Order of the Phoenix*, whose headquarters is protected by such a > spell, which was introduced at the beginning of this same book - > Hermione just *may* have heard of it by the time the students meet at > the Hog's Head to form the DA halfway through this book. > > Ceridwen. > Lanval: Am I to understand that Hermione should have meddled with people's minds? Taken away their free will to divulge the secret, should they have made a conscious choice to do so? And in Marietta's case, taken away her right to turn in this budding terrorist organization fighting their government? *veg* From jnferr at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 02:51:05 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2007 21:51:05 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Marietta In-Reply-To: <003f01c7f194$15de4310$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> References: <003f01c7f194$15de4310$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> Message-ID: <8ee758b40709071951t49367ee7xbac8795cb7e809f1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176859 > > Angel: > > Here however, it's interesting that Marietta is punished for betraying the > trio. In essence Marietta betrayed her friends - Cho who brought her > along. > It seems to JKR the worst sin is to first betray the trio, second betray > your friends. Marietta as a child/teenager was judged and very much > deserved her permanent punishment because she committed those two sins in > one. It was okay for Marietta to betray her mother and authority but not > her friends and most certainly not the trio! > > Percy was left unblemished because he betrayed his family for his own set > of > friends an act JKR once again seems to consider gallant. Besides the > Weasleys could afford to lose only one child and Fred's death much more > dramatic a loss montims: the "betrayal" was sneaking. It is a commonplace in British stories about children, particularly of the boarding school genre, that you do not sneak, or grass, or tell tales on, your peers... Percy did not snitch on his family - he just abandoned them. A grass is despised, and quite rightly, in the best of circumstances. In the dangerous times in which Marietta sold out her classmates, her behaviour was worse than despicable. She did not "betray" her mother or authority - if anything, she disobeyed them, but that is not a punishable action. Telling tales on your peers is. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 8 03:21:08 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:21:08 -0000 Subject: Marietta In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176860 > > Lanval; > > > Absolutely yes. It was desigend to warn the DA not only that > they > > > had been betrayed (granted, only if there was enough time, which > in > > > the actual event was not the cause), but also by *whom*. No one > > > could have foreseen the precise way in which the betrayal took > > place. > > > > Ceridwen: > > The spell didn't warn the DA. The spell only told them who had > > broken peace. They were caught. They were dragged to > Dumbledore's > > office. Their names were captured on the parchment hanging on the > > wall. They were not warned. They were alerted after the fact. > > Since we're going for superlatives where this incident is > concerned, > > if my house catches on fire, I don't want the alarms going off as > the > > fire department is leaving. > > > > > Lanval: > Well, that's what I wrote, isn't it? :) Ceridwen: No. You wrote that, once someone had told, it would be evident. I wrote that the curse failed because it did not prevent the person from telling. Knowing after the fact is not being protected. Preventing the occurrence is being protected. Lanval: It was only *designed* to > warn the DA in a potential (and wholly plausible) Peter Pettigrew > scenario. That it did not work out that way, that actual events have > a way of throwing in a surprise or two, rendering all careful > planning moot -- well, that's something every designer of security > systems, every disaster recovery team, every military commander has > a story about. Ceridwen: A Peter Pettigrew scenario would have been better off not happening in the first place. The planning was not careful, in my opinion, because it allowed the situation to occur. In military, in medical, in parenting, "prevention is worth a pound of cure." Security systems try to prevent by advertising that a property is under surveillance. They give stickers to their clients to post in obvious places to that end. They advertise on TV with dramatized scenes of immediate noise from the alarm, and calls from their call center to the police, another deterrent or preventative measure. When a potential security risk sees the company's sticker on a door, they have a context that should tell them that breaking and entering the premises will be cause for sudden, and unwelcome to the burglar, visits by the police. Which scenario would have been better? Pettigrew approaches Voldemort and gets huge pustules across his face? Or Pettigrew approaches Voldemort and can't tell the secret? Lanval: > One can blame Hermione for not thinking through ALL possible > scenarios, I suppose. But how does the failure of > Hermione's security plan mean that there can never have been one to > begin with? Because that's what I understood the former poster, > Angel, to be arguing. That it was all about revenge. Ceridwen: One can also blame Hermione for not recognizing that prevention, not discovery after the fact, would be better. Security starts with attempts to prevent the feared action in the first place. Hermione did not do what other security teams do: advertise. She did not tell a soul that the parchment was cursed. She did not say, "If you sign this paper, you agree not to tell under penalty of a curse." She just hemmed and hawed and said they should agree not to tell. She didn't say that by signing, they were binding themselves to a curse. Do you think that might have deterred Marietta from going to Umbridge? Lanval: > No one, AFAIK, has ever argued that revenge was entirely absent from > Hermione's mind, but why does the other (major, IMO) aspect -- > security -- have to be discredited? Especially since it is supported > by canon. Ceridwen: Because this wasn't security. Security's first goal is to prevent the occurrence. Hermione didn't warn the signatories that there was a curse on the paper for anyone who told. Simply by telling them this, she would have frightened them into not telling, especially Marietta, who clammed up the minute she saw the pustules on her face. She would probably not have spoken out if she knew there was a curse waiting to strike her if she did. Security is all about attempting to prevent a disaster, not clean up after one. Lanval: *(snipping quotes)* > So how can anyone say that it didn't work? The jinx may not have > protected all the DA members when the actual betrayal happened, > because Umbridge, assisted by her odious little helpers, reacted > with impressive speed. But up to that day, the *absence* of pustules > on any DA member's face lets Hermione and Harry rest a bit easier at > night, and keeps Ron from ripping Michael Corner's head off. Ceridwen: It didn't work. Marietta told. That proves that it didn't work. "When the betrayal happens" should not be the anticipated option. "If" is an iffy option. Up to the day that Umbridge and her IQ descended on the RoR, the absence of Umbridge and the IQ descending on the RoR lets the DA, not just the trio, rest a bit easier at night and keeps them from being found out. When Umbridge and her IQ descend, it's too late to worry. Lanval: > Reason one, given in canon by the author of the jinx: security. > Reason two: revenge. > > Unless of course anyone wants to assume that Hermione is lying. Ceridwen: False dilema bordering on ad hominem, in my opinion. I don't have to assume that Hermione is lying to see that her curse was ineffectual. She may actually believe that she is providing adequate security. She would be wrong. Her curse did not prevent the uncovering of the DA. It merely marked the revealer for revenge. > > > Lanval, smiling at the thought of the sheer amount of angry > > > responses here, had Marietta been struck mute and unable to > > > write. > > > > Ceridwen: > > How about a spell that makes it impossible for the person to > divulge > > the secret? I think there *might* be an obscure spell in canon > which > > allows this, and I'm pretty sure that - in the middle of *HP & The > > Order of the Phoenix*, whose headquarters is protected by such a > > spell, which was introduced at the beginning of this same book - > > Hermione just *may* have heard of it by the time the students meet > at > > the Hog's Head to form the DA halfway through this book. > > > > Ceridwen. Lanval: > Am I to understand that Hermione should have meddled with people's > minds? Taken away their free will to divulge the secret, should they > have made a conscious choice to do so? > > And in Marietta's case, taken away her right to turn in this budding > terrorist organization fighting their government? *veg* Ceridwen: How is making the existence of the DA the subject of a Secret Keeper charm meddling with people's minds? Dumbledore didn't meddle with Harry's mind by writing the secret of Grimmauld Place on a piece of paper at the beginning of OotP. Bill didn't meddle with Remus's mind by revealing the secret of Shell Cottage to him in DH. How would informing them that, by signing the parchment, there would be physical scarring if they told, be taking away their free choice? It seems to me that, by giving them all the facts, it helps them to make the informed decision to sign or not to sign, to join or not to join, in the first place. How would making them privy to the secret of the DA club be taking away their choice? They wouldn't be let in on the secret, if Hermione had been honest with the potential members, if they didn't want to be in on it. Ceridwen. From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Sep 8 03:33:45 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:33:45 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176861 Because I just can't read one more post about Marietta . . . WHAT, exactly was happening with Bathila and the snake in Godric's Hollow? I'm not sure what type of magic we're supposed to think that was. Bathilda was an inferius being controlled indirectly and from VERY FAR AWAY by Voldemort? Bathilda was an inferius being controlled by Nagini? Bathilda was a corpse being animated by the snake inside its body, and not an inferius? Nagini was LITERALLY inside Bathilda's body, waiting to slither out? Nagina was inside Bathilda's clothing, and only seemed to be slithering out of her neck? I found the scene so wholly horrifying that I couldn't find a plausible explanation for how it happened. Allie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 03:40:05 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 03:40:05 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Buckbeak and Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176862 Lanval: One can blame Hermione for not thinking through ALL possible scenarios, I suppose. But how does the failure of Hermione's security plan mean that there can never have been one to begin with? Because that's what I understood the former poster, Angel, to be arguing. That it was all about revenge. Alla: Me too Magpie: And I find that Buckbeak and the Gryffindors do suck in this scene, very much so. Alla: I wanted to stay out of it, I really did, since I know how you feel, you know how I feel about that scene, having debated that many times before. Namely what Draco did makes me very very angry. But I have to say that since I do not remember you expressing it before. **Buckbeak** sucks in this scene? I mean, I can understand blaming Hagrid. I do not blame him, I blame little bastard, but I understand how you blame him. But Buckbeak sucks? Amazing. prep0strus: > i'd have felt honored to bow to a hippogriff, and wish that draco had > gotten his stupid little head clawed off for sticking me with > flobberworms for the rest of the year. Magpie: See, while I would have bowed to the hippogriff too (which Draco does) I am very bothered by the idea that Draco got anybody stuck with flobberworms. To me, that's all about Hagrid's personality and limits as a teacher--as is his setting things up so that something was going to happen. Hagrid's career as a teacher to me reflects Hagrid 100% and not Draco. And just as none of this would have happened if Draco hadn't done what he did, well, same with Hagrid. Alla: Well here I obviously say nothing new, but I am totally with Adam. Yes, I think Draco got everybody stuck with flobberworms, to me he absolutely played a part in it. Adam may not know it, but I am not even the biggest fan of Hagrid. But I am not going to forget that he was already framed once and when Draco Malfoy does it to him again, yes I buy that the wounds of his youth are opened again. Would he become a great teacher? Probably not, but do I think Draco Malfoy, that thirteen year old bastard helped robbed him of the chance to be a decent one? Yeah, I do think so. I believed he tried hard on the first lesson, I believe he was hurt enough not to try anymore. Which does not mean to me that Hagrid does not have his limitations as a teacher or what Malfoy did should have been enough to stop him in his tracks. I wish Mcgonagall would shook him or Dumbledore HAHA took more hands on approach, but I certainly blame Draco Malfoy for his share. JMO, Alla, who would love to see Beaky having a long happy life in Potterverse. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 8 04:09:12 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 04:09:12 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176863 Allie: > WHAT, exactly was happening with Bathila and the snake in Godric's > Hollow? I'm not sure what type of magic we're supposed to think that > was. Bathilda was an inferius being controlled indirectly and from > VERY FAR AWAY by Voldemort? Bathilda was an inferius being > controlled by Nagini? Bathilda was a corpse being animated by the > snake inside its body, and not an inferius? Nagini was LITERALLY > inside Bathilda's body, waiting to slither out? Nagina was inside > Bathilda's clothing, and only seemed to be slithering out of her >neck? Jen: I thought Nagini was possessing the dead body, using Bathilda's mouth to speak Parseltongue like LV used Harry's mouth while possessing him. Could Nagini do that with her soul piece? I figured it wasn't an Inferi because Harry and Hermione never talked about it as an Inferi. Now that you mention the idea it sounds plausible. Maybe it's an animated corpse with Nagini inhabiting the body until the time is right, speaking Parseltongue through the bewitched lips? I don't know! Repulsive. From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 8 04:27:53 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 00:27:53 EDT Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176864 Alla: Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione - ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no? Julie: You do realize you keep making as negative assumptions as possible about Marietta (that she might have kept feeding out information, which makes no real sense, as once the secret is out, it is out), while making as positive assumptions as possible about Peter Pettigrew (I recall nothing whatsoever about Peter being tortured, only that he was afraid for his life, reasonably so I'm sure. And the finger to his mother was a tribute, all that was supposedly left of his body when he died a hero trying to stop that evil murderer Sirius Black, wasn't it?). At least this disparity in your arguments seems the case to me. Let's look at the facts... Peter betrays two of his closest friends and their baby--yes, a BABY no less-- to *certain* death. He knows exactly what Voldemort plans to do and he gives him the information anyway. Marietta betrays her closest friend (along with other students) to possible explusion. That is the canon threat, not torture by Umbridge (we have zero canon stating that Marietta knows what Umbridge did to Harry or anyone else, as we have no scene where said torturees display their torture marks to the DA, so that is only unsupported supposition). Further, she does NOT betray them to Voldemort or anyone outside the school authorities--and as unpleasant as Umbridge is, she isn't nor is implied to be connected to Voldemort but to the Ministry. (And while explusion might be psychologically painful and perhaps damaging to a future career, it's still not torture, and certainly not death.) Peter betrays his friends because he fears for his life, AFAWK. There isn't any definitive canon that he wanted to get back at anyone, though there is canon that Sirius thought rather lowly of him and canon implication that James kept him around at least partly as a sycophant. Whether Peter resents this we don't know, so leave it at him being a coward, even as unsatisfying as that is (why even accept the Secret-Keeper position, if he has any feelings at all for James or Lily, or their innocent baby that I presume he'd at least met and maybe bounced on his knee? He could have refused it, admitting he didn't have the courage for it, even while hiding the fact that he'd apparently been spying for Voldemort for months. Witness that Snape would never have deliberately betrayed Lily, so Peter could have avoided betraying those he cared about, if he cared about anyone.) Marietta betrays her friends because she is torn by her loyalties to her mother versus to Cho and the DA. Again, this is canon stated by Cho. And perhaps there was also some resentment on her part, that the DA evolved beyond what its original purpose or that she felt pressured to get involved in something she wasn't really enthused about from the beginning. But leave it at being torn by her loyalties, which incorporates fear that she will disappoint or anger her mother. And what else...let's see... Peter passed on information to Voldemort for a period of months (a year?) before he betrayed the Potters. We have no canon that the information got anyone tortured or killed, but since Peter was part of the Order, and the Order was being decimated in the first War, it's very likely that the information in fact did lead to just this outcome. Marietta never passed on any other damaging information in canon, and has no reputation in canon for being untrustworthy among her peers. Peter intentionally or through gross negligence got 12 Muggles killed. Marietta got no one killed, or even hurt in the end. Peter let Sirius rot in Azkaban for 12 years while knowing his "friend" was innocent of any crime. Marietta has never sent anyone to Azkaban, and we have no canon that any student could actually be sent to Azkaban if Umbridge even tried, and plenty of canon that Dumbledore, who is set on saving someone even as set toward evil as Draco, is not going to let any of his students be sent to Azkaban. Thus no canon that Marietta though this was a likely or even a possible result (as it indeed was not). Peter became Voldemort's servant again, and helped this entirely evil and homicidal pyschopath regain a corporeal body. Marietta...well, she might have helped someone with his/her homework, but that seems to be about it. We certainly hear of no detentions being served for resurrecting evil Lords! Peter helped set up Harry to be captured by Voldemort, with the knowledge that Harry would be murdered. (His whiny and belated plea to Voldemort to sacrifice someone besides Harry was, well, pathetic.) Marietta...well, she's falling terribly far behind in comparison, isn't she? Peter killed an innocent teenager without the least compunction. Killed him with an Unforgivable. Without compunction. Without remorse. KILLED HIM. Marietta...maybe she killed a mosquito once? Or a fly? Basically the comparison is between a girl betrayed her friends in a one-time school incident--a betrayal to be sure, and one that deserved some sort of outing (though to my mind what she got was extreme), and a boy/man who betrayed those who trusted him over and over again (giving info to Voldemort) and his friends to certain death and to incarceration in a hellhole prison, who also murdered a teenager without remorse and set up another one to die, and who willingly and with complete foreknowledge resurrected a psychopath and thus was partly responsible for dozens (perhaps hundreds) who died during the second war against Voldemort. And you think there is a comparison??! Well, you can compare a nuclear bomb to a slingshot on the basis that both are weapons. But in reality they are two very different things, as Peter and Marietta are two very different people, one whose evil if pathetic nature destroyed dozens of lives literally and figuratively, and one who acted in a very wrong (if you wish, "evil") manner exactly *one time* in canon. So it's beyond me that one can feel sympathy for Peter, yet feel none for Marietta. Incidentally, I seem to recall some debate over the long-lasting nature of Hermione's jinx, and if memory serves, several of the defenders of Hermione's actions stated if the effects of the jinx were permanent, then sure, they'd think Hermione went too far, while adamantly arguing the effects would eventually wear off. Well, it did turn out to be permanent, even if the permanence was in the form of scarring rather than oozing pustules, scarring that I assume still spelled out the word "Sneak." Julie, who respects JKR's or anyone else's right to believe that Marietta deserved what she got, while believing in a more merciful and forgiving brand (oops, pun) of justice than the eye for an eye (or two arms and a leg for an eye) version. ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 8 05:13:16 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:13:16 +1200 Subject: Brilliance was Children's reactions Message-ID: <001301c7f1d6$f6dfb5a0$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176865 Bboymin: Also, keep in mind that James was one of the most brilliant students to ever come through Hogwarts. Not THE most brilliant, but certainly one of the most brilliant. Further Lily was no slouch herself, not to mention that Sirius was also a brilliant student. Anyone of them would have been more than able to cast the charm to protect the Potters. Angel: You know I lost respect for Rowling after DH, but reading your post something just hit me. It's like Rowling already had these perfectly formed images in her head and obnoxiously thought or mistakenly hoped the readers would see the same. Yet she writes the exact opposite of what and whom these characters are. Like, for example, she says character A is brilliant and then lobs the whole basket of idiotic characteristics onto character A. She does the same thing here with brilliance as she does with evil! She tells us these people are evil and shows the good delighting in the practices of such evil acts. She tells us these people are brilliant and then shows them to be utter imbeciles!!! Brilliant: Voldemort James Sirius Blubbering dipthongs: Pettigrew Draco Quirks: Dumbledore Snape It seems being quirky is brilliant, brilliance is idiocy and blubbering idiots are cunningly brilliant. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 8 05:49:01 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 17:49:01 +1200 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: <002101c7f1db$f5697710$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176866 Alla: I am also fascinated that both Pettigrew and Marietta did not just delivered information on other people, they delivered information about their best friends. I mean, Cho *was* there after all, member of the DA as everybody else. Did Marietta care in the slightest? I did not seem to notice. Angel: Actually it would seem Cho herself had "other" reasons to "be there" at the initiation of DA (as most others) and Marietta succumbed to the pressure to tag along, and eventually join. Cho said she made her come with her (or sthing of that extent). Cho later lost interest as Harry lost interest in Cho. Marietta thus had less reason to be loyal to the DA when the person she joined the DA for was herself losing interest, whereas the pressure was heavy on her mother and b!tch Umbridge's propaganda was a noose closing in. Alla: He was executed anyways. I cried, but his guy's torment and remorse was shown really convincingly. I saw no sign of torment with Marietta. Angel: That's because her memory had been modified as you had earlier lauded meant she had nothing to be remorseful of (skuse my paraphrasing), so she basically carried the scars of a sin she knew not. yep great children's book! hope children don't delve as far as we have. Alla: I think there was a brief mention in there somewhere that Harry was **not** the only person who got blood quill detentions. So, do I think it is a reasonable assumption to make that Marietta would have gotten the word from other students, if not from Harry? Yes, I do. But I would not be able to find a quote. I hope I did not dream it up. Angel: This is your response to Mus' point about Marietta not necessarily knowing that Umbridge was a murderer. I agree with him/her and this basically is to further extrapolate on it as you disagreed vehemently. Until the very end when she physically threatened Hermione, Ginny and the rest I too did not think Umbridge was capable of murder. She was however capable of much worse. Emotional, mental and psychological torture have always been worse to me than physical brutality but that is beside the point We do know and see Umbridge through Harry's eyes. In the beginning Harry only thought her ugly, ludicrous even. It was Hermione who instilled that she was much worse until Harry himself was at the end of her quill. You must remember that the trio and the OotP have no regular contact with Marietta and her circles. Dumbledore was publicly in support, at the very least cordial and respectful of Umbridge and all things MoM. Dumbledore was belittled by the Daily prophet, general knowledge evinced Harry and Dumbledore twats and going against the MoM for their own selfish reasons. What did anyone offer to the contrary? Nothing but threats from the twins for anyone who dared ridicule Harry. People who turned up to try and understand were made to sign a legally binding magical contract that would brand them a traitor for life for no other reason than pure vengeance; a much bigger TIT for tat. Alla: That's your opinion. Mine is that while her defense could surely been better executed, the idea of seeing the traitor with the word **SNEAK** would allow the rest of DA to do **something** this very moment. Angel: I thought it was canon not just my opinion . What does buying time do for anyone here? The witch has her witness already, she only needed to catch Harry in the act because once Marietta caught sight of her unsightly face she stopped talking. Had she not caught her reflection she could have sung til Voldemort arrived in DH and the army all expelled and locked up or worse before her disfigurement deterred her. As it is therefore, Hermione's trickery remains just that of vengeance - to let the whole world know who the sneak was serving no "deterrent" "defensive" purpose. Alla: Liplock spell would have been nice actually. But the idea as I see it was to stop traitor from at least continue doing what he was doing. Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione - ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no? Angel: Apologies if I sound anally repetitive here , I just do not see how Hermione saved the day here with her trickery! Stop the traitor from continuing to do what they were doing? How did Hermione manage that in this instance? By making them hideously ugly???? :( Making someone hideously ugly still does not PREVENT THEM FROM SPILLING THE BEANS as Marietta still could have done had not her memory been modified! She was about to nod when halfway through she shook her head. Peter was a rat for 12 years and was still a mole, was beaten, belittled, treated like vermin constantly by Voldemort but was still his servant. Again I stress what Hermione did was to declare the traitor as that, traitor, not to save anyone or buy anyone time. :) But I could be swayed otherwise if there is proof to the contrary. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 8 06:31:14 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 06:31:14 -0000 Subject: Fred and George and Karma (Was: Harry as Frodo or not?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176867 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > It's almost unbearably sad and ironic, and I don't even like Fred. His > death, like Cedric's and Black's, is completely unexpected. Moreover, > he's not even murdered; his death is unrelated to anything that he's > doing. He's merely laughing at a joke made by his straitlaced brother > when a wall falls on him. > > Carol, who thinks that JKR wanted Fred to, quite literally, die laughing Geoff: But isn't this just JKR giving us a reflection of the real world? Every day we hear of people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan being killed in this way - suddenly, unexpectedly and often needlessly or pointlessly. Very few people go out in a really heroic way. Sad but........ From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 08:37:15 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 08:37:15 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176868 > > Allie: > > WHAT, exactly was happening with Bathila and the snake in > > Godric's Hollow? > Jen: > Maybe it's an animated corpse with Nagini inhabiting the body > until the time is right, speaking Parseltongue through the > bewitched lips? Goddlefrood: What follows is, of course, all conjecture on my part. While reading the Bathilda sequence in Deathly Hallows initially, as others possibly did, I thought she was about to reveal something of importance to Harry and Hermione. When Nagini emerged from her it made sense of her reluctance to talk in front of Hermione. The explanation I proffer for how Bathilda became Nagini is quite simple, it also has a parallel with a later sequence, that being the meeting in the corridor outside the Room of Requirement between the trio and another curious trio. That curious trio is shortly thereafter revealed to be Malfoy and his cronies. They boast of their expertise in Disillusionment Charms while explaining, as villains are wont to do, how they had fooled HRH. A Disillusionment Charm placed on Nagini so that anyone meeting her would believe they are actually meeting Bathilda Bagshot is my explanation. It's simple and fits in with canon quite snugly. Toodle pip Goddlefrood From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 8 12:10:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 12:10:59 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176869 > > Jen: I thought Nagini was possessing the dead body, using Bathilda's > mouth to speak Parseltongue like LV used Harry's mouth while possessing > him. Could Nagini do that with her soul piece? I figured it wasn't an > Inferi because Harry and Hermione never talked about it as an Inferi. > Now that you mention the idea it sounds plausible. Maybe it's an > animated corpse with Nagini inhabiting the body until the time is > right, speaking Parseltongue through the bewitched lips? I don't > know! Repulsive. Potioncat: Someone else posted that Bathilda was an Inferius (Inferia?) and I smacked my head. But if you didn't get it either, I don't feel so bad. I think your last bit is correct, She's an Inferius with Nagini in the body. I don't know how Inferiuses (if the pleural of Patronus is Patronuses...)are controlled, but I've never quite worked out the long term Imperius either. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 8 13:14:49 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:14:49 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176870 Potioncat: > Someone else posted that Bathilda was an Inferius (Inferia?) and I > smacked my head. But if you didn't get it either, I don't feel so bad. > I think your last bit is correct, She's an Inferius with Nagini in the > body. I don't know how Inferiuses (if the pleural of Patronus is > Patronuses...)are controlled, but I've never quite worked out the long > term Imperius either. Ceridwen: I think the plural is "Inferi". Don't laugh, all right? At least, don't tell me if you do. I read the scene, I got the idea that Bathilda had been dead for some time (the stench), I got that Nagini was in her animated corpse lying in wait for Harry to show up, I understood that it was Nagini who saw through the cloak, not Bathilda (she also saw through Moody's cloak in OotP), I understood that Bathilda was an animated corpse because Nagini couldn't walk like a woman and so needed the corpse to keep up the pretense, but I never once thought that Bathilda was an Inferus. Ceridwen, who sometimes does need sledgehammers. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Sep 8 13:29:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:29:50 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176871 > Ceridwen: > I think the plural is "Inferi". > > Don't laugh, all right? At least, don't tell me if you do. I read > the scene, I got the idea that Bathilda had been dead for some time > (the stench), I got that Nagini was in her animated corpse lying in > wait for Harry to show up, I understood that it was Nagini who saw > through the cloak, not Bathilda (she also saw through Moody's cloak > in OotP), I understood that Bathilda was an animated corpse because > Nagini couldn't walk like a woman and so needed the corpse to keep up > the pretense, but I never once thought that Bathilda was an Inferus. > > Ceridwen, who sometimes does need sledgehammers. Potioncat: That's what I got too, after I got over the revulsion of what I had just "seen." Now I need to go find out who first posted that she was an Inferius. Poor DADA!Snape---all that time on Inferius vrs Ghosts and we still didn't learn what we needed to know! I agree with inferi, but I'm not sure JKR would ;-) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 8 13:47:44 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 13:47:44 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176872 > Ceridwen: > Don't laugh, all right? At least, don't tell me if you do. I read > the scene, I got the idea that Bathilda had been dead for some time > (the stench), I got that Nagini was in her animated corpse lying in > wait for Harry to show up, I understood that it was Nagini who saw > through the cloak, not Bathilda (she also saw through Moody's cloak > in OotP), I understood that Bathilda was an animated corpse because > Nagini couldn't walk like a woman and so needed the corpse to keep up > the pretense, but I never once thought that Bathilda was an Inferus. >Potioncat: > That's what I got too, after I got over the revulsion of what I had > just "seen." Now I need to go find out who first posted that she was > an Inferius. Poor DADA!Snape---all that time on Inferius vrs Ghosts > and we still didn't learn what we needed to know! Jen: Oh dear, you got all *that*?! I was trying to figure out really important stuff like why Harry walked on his wand but not the body, or why Nagini's tail didn't whip the body around, lol. It was weird how the body was 'collapsing' as Nagini came out 'from the place where the neck had been.' Sort of like it was the skin only - urgh. Maybe that explains why no one tripped over it. Am I slow on the uptake with this part, too? Jen, feeling like a dunderhead. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 15:31:10 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:31:10 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176873 > > Ceridwen: > > Don't laugh, all right? At least, don't tell me if you do. I read > > the scene, I got the idea that Bathilda had been dead for some time > > (the stench), I got that Nagini was in her animated corpse lying in > > wait for Harry to show up, > > >Potioncat: > > That's what I got too, after I got over the revulsion of what I had > > just "seen." > > Jen: Oh dear, you got all *that*?! I was trying to figure out really > important stuff like why Harry walked on his wand but not the body, or > why Nagini's tail didn't whip the body around, lol. It was weird how > the body was 'collapsing' as Nagini came out 'from the place where the > neck had been.' Sort of like it was the skin only - urgh. Maybe that > explains why no one tripped over it. Am I slow on the uptake with this > part, too? > marion11111: Oh, thank goodness, someone else was trying to picture the practicalities of this. At first, I thought she was an Inferius and somehow Nagini just appeared inside her neck (can a snake apparate?) But that didn't really work, so then I assumed she was just an empty Bathilda skin and Nagina was inside her the entire time. But THEN I couldn't picture how that would work since IF Nagini was just wearing Bathilda like that guy in Silence of the Lambs wore his victims, HOW would she walk around? Snakes don't balance on their tails and what would the tailless leg do, just hang there? And what about the arms? At that point I just gave up and decided to go along with the "it's magic" theory. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 15:34:12 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:34:12 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/ a little of Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176874 > Alla: > > Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione - > ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been > able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no? > > > > Julie: > You do realize you keep making as negative assumptions as possible about > Marietta (that she might have kept feeding out information, which makes no > real > sense, as once the secret is out, it is out), while making as positive > assumptions > as possible about Peter Pettigrew Alla: Before we **look at the facts**, lets be clear about me making assumptions and which one I was actually making and which once I was not? I most certainly was **not** making positive assumptions about Peter. That was my point, I was trying to say that those things about him are **not** true, most likely - like in him being tortured. I was saying that just as **positive** assumptions about Peter are not true, they are not shown clearly to me about Marietta and judging by JKR intent I was saying that to me it was most likely done on purpose that she did not show it clearly. Was I making assumption about Marietta that she would continue giving information to Umbridge? Sure, that one I was making. I believe it is a reasonable one to make. And now let's look on the facts :) Julie: > Peter betrays two of his closest friends and their baby--yes, a BABY no > less-- > to *certain* death. He knows exactly what Voldemort plans to do and he gives > him the information anyway. > > Marietta betrays her closest friend (along with other students) to possible > explusion. That is the canon threat, not torture by Umbridge (we have zero > canon stating that Marietta knows what Umbridge did to Harry or anyone else, > as we have no scene where said torturees display their torture marks to the > DA, so that is only unsupported supposition). Alla: Sorry, till somebody tells me that I dreamed up that mentioning that other students were subjected to blood quils, I disagree that it is unsupported supposition. I think it is more than reasonable for Marietta to know about that. So, to me she did betray them to torture and expalsion, but sure, not death. Thus Marietta herself alive at the end IMO. And if you ask me who I think written as more horrifying Voldemort or Umbridge, hmmmmm, before book 7 Umbridge wins hands down, now she is still a bit ahead for me. > Julie: > And what else...let's see... > > Peter passed on information to Voldemort for a period of months (a year?) > before he betrayed the Potters. > Marietta never passed on any other damaging information in canon, and has > no reputation in canon for being untrustworthy among her peers. Alla: Marietta has never passed on any damaging information in canon? Okay, I guess we disagree more than I thought. I consider what she passed to Umbridge to be very damaging. And as I said, I say thank you Hermione for preventing possibility of future Peter. I cannot exclude the possibility of Umbridge telling Marietta to continue do so. Julie: > Peter intentionally or through gross negligence got 12 Muggles killed. > > Marietta got no one killed, or even hurt in the end. Alla: And that is why she is not killed IMO. Julie: > Peter let Sirius rot in Azkaban for 12 years while knowing his "friend" was > innocent of any crime. > > Marietta has never sent anyone to Azkaban, and we have no canon that > any student could actually be sent to Azkaban if Umbridge even tried, and > plenty of canon that Dumbledore, who is set on saving someone even as > set toward evil as Draco, is not going to let any of his students be sent to > Azkaban. Thus no canon that Marietta though this was a likely or even a > possible result (as it indeed was not). Alla: No canon? Well, there was that hearing on Harry and expulsion and possible Azkaban, but besides that no canon you are right. And hmmmm canon about Dumbledore saving students. I do not seem to remember Dumbledore saving students from Umbridge quill, not talking about just Harry even. I seem to remember Dumbledore being oh so very powerless to stop Umbridge from taking power in school. Julie: > Marietta...well, she's falling terribly far behind in comparison, isn't she? Alla: I am afraid not. Not to me. The fact that Marietta did not do those horrible things that Peter did I cannot credit to Marietta, only to other people preventing her from doing that. The initial set up as how everything started bears huge similarities to me. Julie: > Basically the comparison is between a girl betrayed her friends in a one-time > school incident--a betrayal to be sure, and one that deserved some sort of > outing (though to my mind what she got was extreme), and a boy/man who > betrayed those who trusted him over and over again (giving info to Voldemort) > and his friends to certain death and to incarceration in a hellhole prison, > who > also murdered a teenager without remorse and set up another one to die, and > who willingly and with complete foreknowledge resurrected a psychopath and > thus was partly responsible for dozens (perhaps hundreds) who died during > the second war against Voldemort. Alla: Yea, pretty much that is the comparison, except of course the comparison is between the initial betrayal, if you wish. Not between Pettigrew long career of betrayal. Thank you Hermione again IMO. As far as I know Pettigrew could start exactly like Marietta did - somebody from Voldie circle came to him, threatened or whatever ( that is what he says in the Shack, no) and he was torned in his loyalties or something ( or he likely was not) and it all started from there. Only Marietta could not do any more damage. Whether she would want to, it is of course arguable. But if we go by JKR's reaction, I suspect she may want to. IMO of course. Julie: > So it's beyond me that one can feel sympathy for Peter, yet > feel none for Marietta. Alla: Except I do not feel sympathy for Pettigrew, Ok? I attempted to defend him once long time ago and realised that if this is something I do not believe in, I rather not attempt defending the character. My whole point was that just as sympathy towards Pettigrew is unsupported except by his whining, the signs about Marietta's torn loyalties, danger to her mother, etc etc may just not be supported for me as well. > Julie, who respects JKR's or anyone else's right to believe that Marietta > deserved what she got, while believing in a more merciful and forgiving brand > (oops, pun) of justice than the eye for an eye (or two arms and a leg for an > eye) version. Alla: Somebody once said ( do not remember who) that "eye for an eye" is the most misunderstood punishment of Old Testament. It prohibits vendettas and promotes proportional punishment. Word of agreement with that sentiment. > > Ceridwen: > > Don't laugh, all right? At least, don't tell me if you do. I read > > the scene, I got the idea that Bathilda had been dead for some time > > (the stench), I got that Nagini was in her animated corpse lying in > > wait for Harry to show up, I understood that it was Nagini who saw > > through the cloak, not Bathilda (she also saw through Moody's cloak > > in OotP), I understood that Bathilda was an animated corpse because > > Nagini couldn't walk like a woman and so needed the corpse to keep up > > the pretense, but I never once thought that Bathilda was an Inferus. Alla: Just wanted to say that I will not laugh since I also got what you did and never once thought that Batilda was an Inferus as well. DUH. This is amazing. Those are little thingies which we discover about the book together - the details we would never gotten to know on our own. Love it. I mean repulsed by the scene, but love that now I learned something new about it. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 8 15:52:26 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:52:26 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176875 Jen: > Oh dear, you got all *that*?! I was trying to figure out really > important stuff like why Harry walked on his wand but not the body, or > why Nagini's tail didn't whip the body around, lol. It was weird how > the body was 'collapsing' as Nagini came out 'from the place where the > neck had been.' Sort of like it was the skin only - urgh. Maybe that > explains why no one tripped over it. Am I slow on the uptake with this > part, too? Ceridwen: I imagined her head to just hinge off to the side, like Nearly Headless Nick's, when the snake came out. I guess, thinking about it, that the body was hollowed out for the snake to take up residence. Ewwww, maybe the snake ate the innards to sustain herself while she waited for Harry to show up. *taking moment to gross out* The body seemed to be completely empty once the snake came out, just sloughed off like... er, a snake shedding its skin. I think the body had to have at least retained the skeletal structure, so the corpse could be animated to walk and open doors, but was basically hollow inside. I think the way you remember it depends on the mental images you "saw" while reading the scene. These are just my own mental images. Ceridwen. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sat Sep 8 15:58:50 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 11:58:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709080858o7040f351jbde864e35faf9b0d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176876 Potioncat: Someone else posted that Bathilda was an Inferius (Inferia?) and I smacked my head. But if you didn't get it either, I don't feel so bad. I think your last bit is correct, She's an Inferius with Nagini in the body. I don't know how Inferiuses (if the pleural of Patronus is Patronuses...)are controlled, but I've never quite worked out the long term Imperius either. Debbie: I think that was me, but I certainly didn't pick that up on the first read, because by the time Bathilda's body collapsed there was too much else going on, and I didn't think about her again until I reread the book. I originally thought that Nagini was not in the body, but was wrapped around her, hidden by Bathilda's wrappings. Once inside, she took off a shawl that had covered her head, but it's not clear whether she took off any other wrappings. I'm not sure about that detail now; maybe Nagini was inside. However, I do think that Nagini was doing the talking, and was not actually animating Bathilda to speak. She only speaks when she is in the next room or when she is right next to Harry, and it doesn't appear that he is looking at her. When he is looking at her, she communicates by gesture. I don't think Bathilda is being possessed, because I perceive possession to be an invasion of the mind and soul, and as a dead body, Bathilda has neither. Bathilda is acting more like the chess pieces in PS/SS, with Nagini providing the voice, and perhaps the instructions. Or else Voldemort himself is providing the instructions Debbie who assumes that Possession is Dark Magic, but perhaps should refrain from asking [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sat Sep 8 16:04:42 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 08:04:42 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <646FB1BB-5704-4783-A4F3-B898D506D6FB@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176877 On 2007, Sep 07, , at 17:54, Bruce Alan Wilson wrote: > Laura: > > "By that reasoning, Hermione's modification of her parents > memories is also Unforgiveable. She does it with the best > of intentions, but she doesn't give them a choice, the effect > would have been permanent had she died, and she robbed > them of one of the most important part of their lives - their > Daughter" > > How do we know that she gave them no choice in the matter? She may > have sat > them down and given them a complete breakdown of the situation and > her proposed > course of action, using the old clich? (and a clich? is so because > it has a > kernel of truth) that "what you do not know you cannot be made to > reveal." They > may well have consented. How do we know that it was not so, or why > do we > automatically assume the most sinister interpretation of her actions? > > > Bruce Alan Wilson You are right, we don't know. But, as interested in knowing everything as Hermione is, it seems odd to me that her parents would choose to NOT know something. Hermione is in the house that is known for courage, too. While courage may not be hereditary, certain personality characteristics do seem to be. With courageous and interested parents, I just can't imagine that they would CHOOSE to change their lives so drastically by moving to Australia and not knowing that they had a daughter. 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 Sat Sep 8 17:14:59 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:14:59 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176878 "zeldaricdeau" wrote: > you must have your own idea of an > objective code of morality It's subjective not objective and you just try to do things that you figure will bring more net happiness to the world, sometimes it's easy to determine which acts will do that and sometimes it's not, you do the best you can. In Marietta's case it was easy (unless she is a moral imbecile) to figure out that Harry was a better person than Umbrage. > I assume she, like me, interpreted the > name "Dumbledore's Army" as not completely > literal. I've lost count how many times I've said this in the last few days but if so that is YET ANOTHER thing she was dead wrong about. > you don't believe that the influence > of her family/the WW equivalent of > the mass media should be taken into > account in examining her motives/actions. I'm not interested in influences, explaining why somebody is a monster or engages in treachery does not make them one bit less of a traitor. And I might add that Ron read the same newspapers Marietta did and also had a parent who worked for the Ministry, but you don't see any pimples on Ron's face. > You also say, in another post, that > Marietta brought about the death of Sirius Black Yes you're correct, I did. Somebody said Marietta caused no lasting harm and I pointed out that she most certainly had. > Any further crimes, IMO, depend on > what her motivations The hell with motivations! Do you imagine the French Resistance agonized over the reasons this particular Nazi had for joining the Nazi Party before they put a bullet in his head? > Personally, I think the hex was extreme of Hermione Ok, you like motivations so I'll give you motivations. At that point in our story people and things have been trying to kill Harry Ron and Hermione for 5 years, often these attempts had come very close to success. They have seen some pretty horrible things in that time, and if you had endured all that don't you think you might be a little less squeamish than you are right now and be willing to take some very active steps to prevent more of the same? I would. > Hermione--she's my second favorite character Mine too. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 17:33:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:33:03 -0000 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176879 Hee, we talked a lot about unfulfilled expectations after books ended. I cannot really talk about that much, since my expectations were by and large fulfilled. I want to ask sort of related question. While you were reading the books (obviously it only applies to those readers who were experiencing long waits for the next book, not to those who read all the books together except last one), did you have to majorly or at least somehow change your expectations, adjust them so to speak? It happened to me couple times. While I was always reading the books with Harry's eyes and was very satisfied at the end that I did that, at some point in time I believed that JKR may decide to develop adult characters somehow at least. When Sirius died after OOP, I realised that I am due for some attitude adjustment if I want to keep enjoying the books wholeheartedly. I am not talking just about the fact that author decided to kill off my second favorite character after Harry or that I really hoped that she would bring him back. I realised that JKR is not going to give adults even a quarter of what I was hoping for. Like even though she created them as fascinating figures, if I want adults developing, I need to look in fanfiction ( not that I was not before) and see if I am happy with only kids being front and center. I decided that I am quite Okay with doing so. I mean it was easy enough in a sense that I always adored Harry and liked Trio as a whole, it was just sad to abandon my desire to see adults doing something more than they did. My question, if of course anybody desires to answer would be - did you change your attitudes and expectations about the series while you were reading them. I am not talking about finishing DH, just while you were reading other six books. Because at the end JKR reasonably surprised me with Dumbledore and Snape's development. I do not mean revelation about Snape's loyalties, LOL, even though it was not what I was expected. I meant that she shown him changing **somewhat** IMO through the series, not just off the page and same with DD for me. And keep in mind, I am not talking about whether Snape's development made me happy either, because it did not. In a sense that since book 1 as I mentioned before I wanted him to realise what a dolt he was towards Harry and as far as I am concerned, he died hating Harry. I am just saying that I saw **development** of DD and Snape as adult characters in book 7 on the page and it was sort of surprising to me, I sort of got myself used to the idea that adults are created mainly to move the plot or to have Harry experience certain revelations and that is about it. There was another expectation that I had to abandon after HBP actually. It was not as big, but still. I always thought that the ending would be somehow fascinating, unexpected, unique. That final fight would be something - amasing, and for some reason somehow connected with the name **Death eaters** - that it would be explained somehow. When horcruxes were introduced, I realised that I have to abandon my expectations of something unique for the ending. Again, do not get me wrong, I was **happy** with the ending, it is just at earlier time of the series, I expected to read something more unusual, if that makes sense. Alla. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 8 17:38:26 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 17:38:26 -0000 Subject: Marietta. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176880 juli17 at ... wrote: > you are verging into the territory > where the end always justifys the means. As I said in a previous post I believe "the end ALWAYS justifies the means" is one of the 3 stupidest debates in all of Philosophy, the second is "the end NEVER justifies the means" and the third is "Man has free will". The first two ideas are just comically wrong, the third idea is so bad it's not even wrong. > There is also a difference between > a wrong act and an evil act If I think there are 140 degrees in a triangle then I am wrong but not evil; if I commit murder because I think there is nothing wrong with murder then I am wrong and evil. Eggplant From bartl at sprynet.com Sat Sep 8 19:25:08 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 15:25:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Marietta. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E2F714.2060808@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176881 eggplant107 wrote: > As I said in a previous post I believe "the end ALWAYS justifies the > means" is one of the 3 stupidest debates in all of Philosophy, the > second is "the end NEVER justifies the means" and the third is "Man > has free will". The first two ideas are just comically wrong, the > third idea is so bad it's not even wrong. Bart: And let's not forget: Absolute statements are always wrong. Bart From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 8 19:45:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:45:59 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176882 > Pippin: > The DE's are there because the Carrows told Voldemort that Harry > was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, > (though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in, > and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty > ironic and connected enough for me. > > Magpie: > Really? To me that's far too convuluted to come up with it being > karmic. I think Fred dies a hero fighting for the school, period, and > the Carrows being there has barely anything to do with the Vanishing > Cabinets much less what they did. Pippin: Poetic allusions always sound convoluted if you try to explain them. I guess what it comes down to is that I expected the twins to reap some consequences, so when the Carrows reappear, the cabinet reappears and (BANG!) the long feared Weasley death happens to Fred because a wall falls on him, I get that he died because his life was worthless to someone else in the same way that Montague's was to him. YMMV. Magpie: If felt more just like more proof that This Book Is Dark Because Beloved > Characters Die! to me. > Pippin: To me, the book is dark because beloved illusions die. At least, if you're old enough not to believe in Santa Claus and TV-style heroes with teflon moral standards, but you still want to. Kids need to believe in those things. It's good for them. And then, when they're old enough, JKR is telling us, they need, we need, to put those beliefs aside. Belonging to Gryffindor House can be an inspiration to extraordinary virtue, but as it turns out, it doesn't guarantee even basic humanitarianism. I re-read the exchange between McGonagall and Slughorn yesterday and I about fell out of my chair. Here it is: "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes, also, " said Professor McGonagall. "If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance or take arms against us within this castle, Horace, we duel to kill." "Minerva!" he said, aghast. As well he should be. Look at what she said: if any Slytherins side with Voldemort, Horace and the entire House will be held responsible, and duelled to the death, ickle firsties and all. And then, just to make sure we don't miss the point (ah, but we do, because we're in the grip of our delusionary faith that JKR won't let the other houses do anything really bad) the students draw wands on the Slytherin table, most of whom are children. Harry, who once sprang between Sirius and Snape to keep them from harming one another, is awestruck and overwhelmed. And people think Slytherin leaving en masse is supposed to be a sign that *they* have no moral compass? Excuse me? You want to know where the good Slytherins went? They walked out when the other houses turned to madness and evil, as briefly deluded as Dumbledore once was. No, it's not obvious. But that's what all the folderol about the Elder Wand is for, to slow us down, as Dumbledore said, and make us *think*. I'm not trying to take anything away from the courage and sacrifice of those who fought in the battle, but we can as adults admire what they did without having to believe JKR wants us to see them as perfect in every way. Can't we? Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 19:47:49 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:47:49 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176883 --- "allies426" wrote: > > --- "R. Penar" wrote: > > > > In the Ravenclaw common room McGonagall Imperio's > > Alex Carrow and he hands over his and Electo's wands > > and lies down on the floor. So it got me thinking > > ...why on Earth didn't she Imperio him about 10 > > months ago ...? > > > > ... > Allie: > > I would imagine that the Carrows have been reporting > to Voldemort or other high-up Death Eaters - an > Imperio would have been detected immediately. The > wrath of Voldemort would have descended on the school > and on the professor even more quickly. At that > point in the common room, it was safe to do it > because the final battle was about to unfold. bboyminn: Right, you have to pick your battles. If the Carrows had gone from 'ravenous wolves' to 'fluffy bunnies' I think someone might have noticed. THEN the retribution for having Imperiused some of Voldemort's men would have been swift and terrible; and it could have affected both teachers and students. Best to bide your time and pick your battles. Once Harry is in the castle, I think 'all hell breaks loose' is a far description of events to come. At that point it is time to stand and fight, so McGonagall is not so reluctant to attack a Death Eater. General Comments on the Subject- I still think this is the key to the morality of the Imperius in general; context matters. We seem to have people who view everything as morally neutral, or who seem to be moral absolutest, typically asking why it is OK for the good guys can do some thing but not for the bad guys? My response is to point out that the world is not morally neutral, and the Bad Guys ARE /Bad Guys/. Certainly you can tell the evil terrorist from those who are opposing them? Yet on an isolated basis it might be necessary for the good guy to engage in the equivalent of terrorism. Yet the good guy are the good guys, and their purpose is to oppose evil and tyranny. The bad guys are the perpetrators of said evil and tyranny, and while it is not always clear, it is our moral, ethical, spiritual, and legal duty to be able to tell the difference. If you are so 'morally neutral' that you can't read these books and see who the bad guy with the evil purpose and methods are, and who the good guys who oppose the purposes and methods are, then as I said, I strongly think your moral compass needs adjusting. Good Guys may do something bad as a matter of momentary need, whereas for the Bad Guys bad things are a preferred way of life. Again, if you can't tell the good guys from the bad guys, you moral compass needs adjusting. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 20:34:15 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 20:34:15 -0000 Subject: Liking the Bad (was:Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176884 > >>Magpie: > > Like, I blame the author for the general dislike I have of the > whole storyline as a whole. I can agree that Draco is completely > wrong in the way he responds to his screw up in class, imo. I just > don't identify with the characters' own anger about it. So the > author's failed to get me enjoying the story. > Betsy Hp: Ooh, this is an interesting statement. Because as I've skimmed through various posts, something that's been bugging me a bit is that I *did* identify more with the Slytherins as a reader, I *did* like Draco's character better than the Trio. So I was wondering, "My goodness, am I a closet bigot and/or evil and didn't even realize?" Then I figured out that no, I just dislike JKR's take on the world as expressed in the Potter series. So naturally I gravitated towards those she was setting us up to hate. Which on the one level, "whew!" and on the other level, so where did JKR go wrong for me? The Hagrid/Draco showdown is an excellent example of JKR turning me off. While Draco overtly calls Buckbeak a brute, Hagrid insidiously places Buckbeak into a situation where disaster is sure to strike. So while JKR is bullying me towards disliking Draco because he's mean to animals, I can't help but twist around to look at Hagrid and think, yes, but Hagrid's more of a danger to the animals he professes to love than Draco could hope to be. So if you're trying to manipulate me with Buckbeak's big puppy eyes, it's working in a way I'm not sure you're meaning it to work. And since there was a big movement towards JKR being a master of subtlety (major, massive, lie, IMO as per DH) I thought for a while there, the subtle view might even be the correct one. > >>Magpie: > > (Luckily, to give JKR credit, the kids in canon actually don't seem > to side with Hagrid on this kind of thing in later years, however > much of a great time you feel they were having.) Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. We're told *and shown* time and again that Hagrid as a teacher is the big suck. So again, I thought this was an example of JKR being subtle and having an overlying obvious interpertation that would get thrown over in the end by the more subtle interpertation. (When in DH Harry decided that if Hagrid caused MadEye's death whilst in the throes of a drunken stupor, well that'd be okay then, I started to realize I was very possibly, horribly, horribly wrong.) > >>Prep0strus: > > I guess that's your perogotive, but it still seems strange to me > > to not be bothered by someone simply because you know you're > > supposed to be bothered by someone. It doesn't make his actions > > any more sypathetic or admirable. > >>Magpie: > I can't explain it, but that was my honest reaction to the book-- > and I'm not alone. Draco's my favorite character in the series even > though he turned out to be a dud imo. I've read plenty of books > where I disliked a character because I felt like the author wanted > me to like them--or at least, that exacerbated my dislike. That > happens all the time when people read. I did a thing once where I > asked people to list the characters they hated most in fiction and > most of them had some element of the author presenting the > character as an obviously admirable person. The same works in > reverse--have you really never had that experience? Draco was like > the Wile E. Coyote of the Potterverse for so long I totally rooted > for him. (Also I love him in most CoMC classes.) Betsy Hp: For myself, since I started out liking Draco from his very first scene (much as I liked Snape from his very first scene) it wasn't so much a knee-jerk, JKR wants me to hate these guys so I will stubbornly decide to like them. It was more, again, I go for subtle readings. And while both Draco and Snape wore their faults on their sleeves, I assumed that because those faults were there to be seen, they'd also be dealt with. And alongside those faults were some rather charming (IMO) characteristics. The sort of stuff that automatically gets me liking a character. I thought JKR put that stuff there for a purpose as well. (Now I suspect that stuff I find charming, JKR finds either distasteful or suspect.) I also assumed that the faults I saw in the Gryffindors in general and the Trio in particular, though not acknowledge as faults by the characters, were acknowledged as such by JKR, and would be dealt with as well. And I thought, being the hereos, they'd have a greater struggle in the end, and therefore, the greater triumph. And again, the Trio's faults struck me as more insidious and dangerous than Draco's faults. (If Slytherins were the Nazis, than Gryffindors were the SS, if that makes sense.) Mainly because no one was telling the Trio that they *had* faults. So they thought their bad behavior was actually good. And, in what I considered an odd and distasteful move, the Trio's unrecognized faults turned out to not be faults at all. Apparently they really *could* judge whether someone was good or bad on sight. And their violent bullying of others was, I guess showing spirit, or something? Which means I *especially* left the series feeling that anyone JKR listed as "good" was more or less bad, and those she labled "bad" were either probably pretty good or not as bad as those labled "good". Mainly because I decided that her judgement was competely wonky. So any reading I do will naturally be subversive. IOWs, "The smurfs are totally under that mushroom, Gargamel! No, no, the *other* mushroom!" Betsy Hp From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 8 21:52:53 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 21:52:53 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins/Liking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176885 > > Pippin: > > The DE's are there because the Carrows told Voldemort that Harry > > was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, > > (though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in, > > and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty > > ironic and connected enough for me. > > > > Magpie: > > Really? To me that's far too convuluted to come up with it being > > karmic. I think Fred dies a hero fighting for the school, period, and > > the Carrows being there has barely anything to do with the Vanishing > > Cabinets much less what they did. > > > Pippin: > Poetic allusions always sound convoluted if you try to explain them. > > I guess what it comes down to is that I expected the twins to reap > some consequences, so when the Carrows reappear, the cabinet > reappears and (BANG!) the long feared Weasley death happens > to Fred because a wall falls on him, I get that he died because > his life was worthless to someone else in the same > way that Montague's was to him. YMMV. Magpie: To me it's more that that because it's not even poetic to my ears. The Twins would be at Hogwarts fighting in the final battle regardless, because there was always going to be a final battle at Hogwarts with DEs vs. the Twins. They died the same way Tonks and Lupin and Colin did. Fred's death didn't remind me of Montague's problems at all. He especially didn't seem worthless to anyone, because while Montague's trouble is a joke from the pov of the reader (ha ha we stuffed him in a Cabinet as part of Umbridge's stupid squad, ha ha his head's in a toilet), Fred's is unexpected but totally serious and cared-about. He died because among other things, the death of one twin is very sad, and the death of a jokester immediately makes a point (the ghost of his last laugh on his face). Montague--or any of the other times the Twins treated anyone else badly--didn't enter my mind. All that stuff almost seemed erased with this kind of death--and that's even suggesting the stuff wasn't supposed to be good fun to begin with. I got the feeling part of what was sad about the loss of Fred is he wouldn't be able to give any more bullies what-for. The deaths that do seem tied to a person's actions to me are far more obvious: Sirius is taunting Bellatrix, his cousin. Bellatrix's last moment is compared to Sirius' exactly. Peter is killed by the gift from his master. Their deaths all came straight out of their faults. (Sirius' isn't karmic, though, imo.) Pippin: > "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes, > also, " said Professor McGonagall. "If you wish to leave with your students, > we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance > or take arms against us within this castle, Horace, we duel to kill." > > "Minerva!" he said, aghast. > > As well he should be. Look at what she said: if any Slytherins > side with Voldemort, Horace and the entire House will be > held responsible, and duelled to the death, ickle firsties and all. > And then, just to make sure we don't miss the point (ah, but we do, > because we're in the grip of our delusionary faith that JKR won't let > the other houses do anything really bad) the students draw wands > on the Slytherin table, most of whom are children. > Magpie: I don't hear her say that at all. She said if anybody takes up arms against the school that person will be dueled with to kill, not that if one Slytherin does something bad she's going to kill all the Slytherins even if they're 11 years old. Slughorn is aghast at her accusation that the Slytherins might side against them, and that she is ready to kill any of them, not all of them--at least that's what I got from it. Pippin: > Harry, who once sprang between Sirius and Snape to keep them > from harming one another, is awestruck and overwhelmed. > > And people think Slytherin leaving en masse is supposed to be a sign > that *they* have no moral compass? Excuse me? > > You want to know where the good Slytherins went? They walked > out when the other houses turned to madness and evil, as > briefly deluded as Dumbledore once was. > > No, it's not obvious. But that's what all the folderol about the > Elder Wand is for, to slow us down, as Dumbledore said, and > make us *think*. Magpie: I think it's more than not obvious. I think it's not there--and if it was I don't think it would be that subtle. McGonagall is saying it's time for Slytherin to pick a side, and they don't choose Hogwart's side. When Pansy gets up she's a rep of the house, she tries to get rid of Harry, and everyone orders them out at wandpoint--because they're ready to defend Harry from any Slytherin who tries to hurt him or give him to Voldemort. I can't assume there were Slytherins who were ordered out and were thinking they really wanted to stay (I've not seen any signs of it)--and I don't really think that's what I was supposed to think. I think people like McGonagall were supposed to be awesome in those last chapters, including her demands that Slytherin is with them or against them. Perfect in every way? No. Horrible for the way the treat the Slytherins? I don't think so. The Slytherins were fine, and got through the war with only one student casualty, who killed himself. Betsy Hp: Yes, exactly. We're told *and shown* time and again that Hagrid as a teacher is the big suck. So again, I thought this was an example of JKR being subtle and having an overlying obvious interpertation that would get thrown over in the end by the more subtle interpertation. Magpie: Yes, I thought that for a while too. But I eventually thought it was more that she just found Hagrid's foibles amusing and cuddly--Harry in the first book doesn't think to call Hagrid on giving him detention *for helping Hagrid keep out of bigger trouble himself.* He also easily forgives him for every other silly thing he does that would put people in danger (if Dumbledore set up hexes for people who passed on information Hagrid would be in more trouble than Peter!). I think his whole teaching thing is that he's just a bad teacher in his way like Snape is a bad teacher in his way. Only she finds Hagrid's bad teaching funny and wants to defend him. Being anti-Hagrid is a way of being subtly anti-Harry. (Parvati and Luna are both good guys, but their moments of not supporting Hagrid are moments of conflict with the Trio.) Betsy Hp: For myself, since I started out liking Draco from his very first scene (much as I liked Snape from his very first scene) it wasn't so much a knee-jerk, JKR wants me to hate these guys so I will stubbornly decide to like them. Magpie: Draco had me from "He's some sort of servant isn't he? Exactly." I guess that's the moment where you either get appalled that Draco is a snob who refers to Hagrid as a servant, or you laugh because you like clueless snob characters. I'm in the latter category. I do now rather assume JKR is in the former category--as I said elsewhere, the go- getters working their way to the top are in Gryffindor, while Slytherin seems to get the side of ambition that means cheating, networking, bigotry, bribery and exclusion--ambition robbed of the talent and hard-work found in the ambitious good guys. BetsyHp: And, in what I considered an odd and distasteful move, the Trio's unrecognized faults turned out to not be faults at all. Apparently they really *could* judge whether someone was good or bad on sight. And their violent bullying of others was, I guess showing spirit, or something? Magpie: It probably didn't help that that very kind of story--one that interests me--did end up happening to Slytherin characters. They were the ones who had their bad behavior and choices rubbed in their face and cause them pain. Only they didn't change in the way I thought they would so their storylines weren't transformative. That's a difference in the pov of Lewis and Rowling it seemed to me. However much Rowling didn't like Susan being kept out of heaven at the end (due to her liking lipstick and nylons--though Susan could still get to Narnia eventually), Lewis seems to love sinners more. -m From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 8 22:13:28 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:13:28 +1200 Subject: Bathilda Message-ID: <001801c7f265$7c63c340$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176886 Goddlefrood: A Disillusionment Charm placed on Nagini so that anyone meeting her would believe they are actually meeting Bathilda Bagshot is my explanation. It's simple and fits in with canon quite snugly. Angel: I wish it was so, but it doesn't explain the putrid odours. Besides (though I admit I only read this scene carefully once - I get icky shivers just remembering it!) Harry clearly describes Nag 'coming out' of Bathilda's neck, the rest of the body supposedly either stripping away, falling back or whatever. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 8 22:13:57 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 10:13:57 +1200 Subject: Marietta Message-ID: <001d01c7f265$8cfc6b80$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 176887 Lanval: Well, that's what I wrote, isn't it? :) It was only *designed* to warn the DA in a potential (and wholly plausible) Peter Pettigrew scenario. That it did not work out that way, that actual events have a way of throwing in a surprise or two, rendering all careful planning moot -- well, that's something every designer of security systems, every disaster recovery team, every military commander has a story about. One can blame Hermione for not thinking through ALL possible scenarios, I suppose. But how does the failure of Hermione's security plan mean that there can never have been one to begin with? Because that's what I understood the former poster, Angel, to be arguing. That it was all about revenge. No one, AFAIK, has ever argued that revenge was entirely absent from Hermione's mind, but why does the other (major, IMO) aspect -- security -- have to be discredited? Especially since it is supported by canon. A mere couple of days after the Hog's Head meeting, Educational Decree Number 24 is posted, forbidding all student organizing of any sort unless approved by the "High Inquisitor". Harry right away suspects they have been found out; someone has talked. Ron -- and this is extremely important! -- immediately starts to name names, *wrongly*!!! accusing Zach Smith and Michael Corner of snitching. And punches his fist into his hand. And calls Hermione 'naive' for not doing the same. OotP, Scholastic Ed. p.352: "No, they can't have done because I put a jinx on that piece of parchment we all signed," said Hermione grimly. "Believe me, if anyone's run off and told Umbridge, we'll know exactly who they are and they will really regret it." Angel: Lanval, that is exactly what I was arguing. Hermione herself says so, just above in the quote you provided. I did not say Hermione's trickery did not work either. It worked perfectly. No one could miss SNEAK plastered on Marietta's face if she allows the veil to fall. I was arguing what preemptive good that did for any of the DA as the insinuations were made that it was a security measure. all it did was secure the blame on the tattler. It protected no one. (except may be from Ron's wrath who incidentally was looking for a way to incinerate Michael for dating Ginny not particularly for being a snitch!) I suggested something like a liplock spell or whatever else because it would seem quite simple compared to the Fidelius, not all the time but whenever an attempt was made to spill the beans on the DA, as Ceridwen says. It never occurred to me you or Hermione might take that to mean I was pushing for a mute modified Marietta which incidentally is exactly what she became regardless of Hermione's intentions. If there were other security measures Hermione installed, how come "only" the sneak punishment was mentioned and in the outcome, worked? montims: the "betrayal" was sneaking. It is a commonplace in British stories about children, particularly of the boarding school genre, that you do not sneak, or grass, or tell tales on, your peers... Percy did not snitch on his family - he just abandoned them. A grass is despised, and quite rightly, in the best of circumstances. In the dangerous times in which Marietta sold out her classmates, her behaviour was worse than despicable. She did not "betray" her mother or authority - if anything, she disobeyed them, but that is not a punishable action. Telling tales on your peers is. Angel: Thanks montims, Point taken though I was purely sarcastic in that post however tattling on your peers was only punishable here because that is the offence Hermione made punishable, for all we know Marietta's mother had plans for a punishment of her own, if her mother being in dire straits was not punishment for Marietta enough. In kids stories a grass is despised but grasses are oft given a chance for redemption or at least the freedom to do so. Marietta wore her sin for the next whole school year at least. Alla: Alla: Pettigrew was selling information for a **year**. Thanks to Hermione - ONCE would have been the most what traitor of the DA would have been able to do, since everybody would have seen him, no? Angel: Both Ceridwen and Julie have vocalised exactly what I wanted to say more eloquently and fully than I dared hope :-) if that is enough then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 23:26:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:26:03 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/ a little of Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176888 Alla wrote: > Sorry, till somebody tells me that I dreamed up that mentioning that other students were subjected to blood quils, I disagree that it is unsupported supposition. I think it is more than reasonable for Marietta to know about that. Carol responds: Undoubtedly the whole school knows about Harry's multiple detentions, but they probably don't know about the blood-letting quill as he tells only Ron and Hermione what happens there, refusing to tell either McGonagall or Dumbledore. Only one other student in OoP receives a similar detention, Lee Jordan, for telling Umbridge that she's violating her own decree for telling the Weasley Twins not to play Exploding Snap in class (OoP Am. ed. 551). Harry recommends essence of murtlap for the cuts on Lee's hand. We hear nothing about Lee receiving additional detentions (Umbridge doesn't know he's the one who puts the Niffler in her office), and no other student is mentioned as receiving detention from Umbridge. Marietta is a Ravenclaw and a sixth-year, so she would have no classes with either Harry or Lee. It is quite possible, then, that she knew nothing about the detentions. Carol, who accidentally typed "Exploding Snape" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 8 23:56:28 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2007 23:56:28 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176889 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > "zeldaricdeau" wrote: > > > you must have your own idea of an > > objective code of morality > > It's subjective not objective and you just try to do things that you > figure will bring more net happiness to the world, sometimes it's easy > to determine which acts will do that and sometimes it's not, you do > the best you can. In Marietta's case it was easy (unless she is a > moral imbecile) to figure out that Harry was a better person than Umbrage. Carol responds: You keep on repeating that, but I think you forget that Marietta not only doesn't know Harry (she's in a different House and a different year), she has also been reading in the Daily Prophet that he's a liar and Dumbledore is a doddering old fool. (Note that Dumbledore has been deprived of several important positions because he's supposedly losing his grip.) The Minister of Magic himself doesn't believe Harry. Even Seamus Finnigan, Harry's dormmate for four years, has his doubts (though Harry's insulting Seamus's mother doesn't help matters). Umbridge, a Ministry representative like Marietta's mother, is telling the students of Hogwarts that the claim that Voldemort is back and that the students are in no danger. She tells them to come to her if they hear "lies." Marietta has no way of knowing that Harry's claims are true and Umbridge's are false. Certainly, she can see that Umbridge is becoming increasingly powerful at Hogwarts, usurping authority from Dumbledore (though she's not yet headmistress), but in Marietta's view, "Dumbledore's Army" is being formed to oust Fudge and his administration and replace them with Dumbledore himself, the man who claims with no evidence except Harry's word that Dumbledore is back. If Marietta knew that Umbridge had sent Dementors to Little Whinging to attack Harry and yet supported Umbridge, or that Umbridge was willing to use Veritaserum and even the Cruciatus Curse on students to obtain information, then she would indeed have been a "moral imbecile" to support Umbridge. But no one (except HRH and Susan Bones, who was told by her "auntie") knows about the Dementors because the incident was kept out of the Daily Prophet, and not even Harry knows yet that Umbridge sent them. Harry suspects but doesn't know for sure about the Veritaserum (which, in any case, was fake thanks to Snape) and the attempted Crucio hasn't happened yet. And Harry has told only Ron and Hermione about the blood quill. (Lee Jordan, the only other person on whom it's used that we know of, doesn't seem to spread the information around.) You expect more of Marietta than is humanly possible given the available evidence for Harry's sanity and truthfulness and moral superiority. Yes, she told on her fellow students, one of whom was her friend, and, yes, the students she told on could have been expelled. But the idea that she could somehow know that the angry boy who refuses to answer Zacharias Smith's questions about what happened to Cedric Diggory or to offer convincing evidence that Voldemort is back is morally superior to the seemingly motherly woman who offers her friendship to the "children" of Hogwarts needs canon support that you have not yet offered. Carol, who thinks that Marietta, like Fudge, believes that Dumbledore and Harry are lying in part because they don't want to believe them but in part because they have been given no good reason to believe otherwise From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 00:45:08 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:45:08 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic WAS: Re:help with JKR quote/ Children's reactions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176890 > Mike: > BTW, I forgot to address your question on dark vs Dark. You had asked > if this is me/us constructing something that JKR has not shown in > canon. First, let me recommend zgirnius' post #176584, in part: > That was a summary statement, she went into more detail up-post. This > is what I read in the books. The outcome of some spells, though not > always pleasant, did not rise to the level of Dark (Capital). It was > a matter of degrees, as zgirnius said, and not that hard to guage > objectively, imo. lizzyben: I agree w/zgirnius' definition, though he/she doesn't seem to distinguish Dark/dark the way you do. The whole Dark/dark thing just seems to be a matter of personal interpretation in what you consider to be minor or major dark magic. I'd agree that the Unforgiveable Curses, horcruxes, etc. are darker than jinxes, for example, but IMO it all falls under the category of "Dark Magic". > Mike: > Except the train rides home after books 4 & 5, I didn't see MCG > getting beat up by HRH. (And no Gryff jinxed MCG on 5's ride home) > And didn't I see Draco and Crabbe-n-Goyle bullying HRH on several > train rides to Hogwarts? Like in books 1, 3, 4, & 6. lizzyben: Oh, thank you for reminding me of the book 5 train attack; I didn't include that in the list. *noted* And, in retrospect, that attack is even worse than I noticed at the time. Harry says that MCG were attempting to ambush him on the train, but they never even managed to get out one jinx - which is odd, if they'd had wands drawn in waiting & Harry did not. Couldn't they even get one spell out when they saw Harry? Draco didn't even say something obnoxious. Instead, nothing happens until the rest of the DA spring out of their compartment to attack Draco & co. "By the time Ernie Macmillan, Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones, Justin Finch -Fletchley, Anthony Goldstein and Terry Boot had finished using a wide variety of the hexes and jinxes HARRY HAD TAUGHT THEM, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle resembled nothing so much as three gigantic slugs squeezed into Hogwarts uniform as Harry, Ernie and Justin hoisted them into the luggage rack and left them there to ooze. `I must say, I'm looking forward to seeing Malfoy's mother's face when he gets off the train; said Ernie, with some satisfaction, as he watched Malfoy squirm above him. Ernie had never quite got over the indignity of Malloy docking points from Hufflepuff during his brief spell as a member of the Inquisitorial Squad. `Goyle's mum'll be really pleased, though; said Ron, who had come to investigate the source of the commotion. `He's loads better looking now anyway, Harry, the food trolley's just stopped if you want anything " So the DA gang attacks MCG w/hexes & jinxes that Harry taught them during their meetings. Harry was actually teaching dark magic! He was teaching them offensive battle spells as well as DADA. In addition to the hexes & jinxes used in this scene, Harry also taught them at least two curses - the Impediment Curse & Reductor Curse. This gives DA members a huge fighting advantage against other students, who haven't been formally taught dark magic spells. And a huge advantage against Slytherins, who weren't allowed to join the club. By fifth year, the DA are the real masters of dark magic in the school. Isn't it ironic that "DA" can stand for Defense Association and Dark Arts? Isn't it ironic that Hermione lifts spells directly from the Death Eaters? At first I thought the irony was intentional, now it seems like it was unintentional. But it's still there. Mike: I suppose the > Slyths didn't land any jinxes, except 6 where Draco got his revenge > with both a jinx and a stomp. lizzyben: About time! 5 years of Draco getting punched, jinxed, slashed, sluggified, stomped on & humiliated, and he *finally* manages to win a match. Once. That's his ever-so-brief moment of acting as an actual rival, instead of a punching bag. And think about it. Five years, and the Slytherins never *once* successfully hex Harry. In contrast, Harry & co. jinx/hex Slytherins quite often. Draco doesn't tend to resort to violence in the way the Gryffindors do. He's all about the verbal taunts. When you refer to Draco "bullying" the Trio in earlier train rides, that's essentially what he's doing. And in book one, he actually tried to make friends w/Harry. In Book 3, he calls Ron & Harry "Potter & Weasel." I don't really consider that "bullying" - it's exactly equal & no violence is used. And consider Crabbe & Goyle - they don't even taunt; they just stand there & look stupid. In 6 books, they don't insult Harry & don't punch or jinx anyone. Yet we still think of them as bullies. Why? Because they "look the part," that's why. They're described as "brutal, thuggish, stupid, sneering," etc. So that when they are hexed-by-association w/Draco, we are fully convinced that they deserve it. > Mike: > Not exactly. Saying Harry tried to Crucio a teacher, full stop, is > removing a little bit of the motivation, wouldn't you say? Like, he > just witnessed this teacher murdering the Headmaster. That's context. > That the teacher was evil, ugly, etc. or that Harry was good, noble, > etc. is not context. Harry's use of Sectumsempra was stupid, but he > didn't know what the spell did and he used it to block Draco's > Crucio. And Draco fired first in this scuffle. That is also context. > Except if you ignore context and exaggerate those events then all you > are doing is giving them spin. lizzyben: Oh, yeah, I was giving it spin; not doing an unbiased rendition of events. The narrative gives it spin, too, and a very biased POV. That's basically my point. The spin encourages us to overlook the violence & nastiness of the Gryffindors' attacks. > Mike: > Since we spend 90% of the books following Harry, we were sure to see > them using more spells of all sorts than we'd see from their > Slytherin counterparts. BTW, where are all these dark spells used by > Gryffs against the Slyth students? Do you mean the Trio, Fred and > George against MCG in book 4? And might I counter with Draco's cursed > neckless and poisoned mead in book 6? Which I believe almost killed > two Gryffs. lizzyben: Nah, I disagree. If we spent the books following Draco around, we'd *still* see him getting attacked much more often than he succeeds in attacking his Gryf. enemies. For a list, see my & Carol's earlier post. By book 4, the Gryfs are using many semi-dark spells against Draco & co. By book 5, they've become proficient at "dark" hexes & willing to use them against their enemies in the IS who try to dock House points. By book 6, they've begun to use dark magic recklessly to get what they want, or to get revenge when they're angry. It's a steady, downward, progression of using more & more dark/violent magic against other students. Sorry, can't counter w/the mead & necklace - Draco wasn't aiming at Gryfs or getting revenge, he was trying to complete his mission of killing DD. And the Gryfs don't always use dark magic against Draco & co, sometimes they just do an old-fashioned beat-down. One other such incident occurred in Book Five, when both Harry & George pile on Draco & beat him up after he insults Harry. " 'Or perhaps, said Malfoy, leering as he backed away; you can remember what your mother's house stank like, Potter, and Weasleys pigsty reminds you of it ? Harry was not aware of releasing George, all he knew was that a second later both of them were sprinting towards Malfoy. He had completely forgotten that all the teachers were watching: all he wanted to do was cause Malfoy as much pain as possible; with no time to draw out his wand, he merely drew back the fist clutching the Snitch and sank it as hard as he could into Malfoy's stomach; "Harry! HARRY! GEORGE! NO!" He could hear girls' voices screaming, Malfoy yelling, George swearing, a whistle blowing and the bellowing of the crowd around him, but he did not care. Not until somebody in the vicinity yelled "Impedimenta!"; and he was knocked over backwards by the force of the spell, did he abandon the attempt to punch every inch of Malfoy he could reach. Malfoy was curled up on the ground, whimpering and moaning, his nose bloody..." ...(McGonegal) strode around behind her desk and faced them, quivering with rage as she threw the Gryffindor scarf aside on to the floor. "Well?" she said. "I have never seen such a disgraceful exhibition. Two on one! Explain yourselves!" "Malfoy provoked us," said Harry stiffly." Big fat bullies is what they are. Two against one is disgraceful. So is five against three (GOF stomp) or SEVEN against three (OOTP stomp). Draco is consistently out-numbered & out-powered in these little encounters, which means he ends up hexed, slugged, bloody, unconscious and the good guys just end up w/a sense of satisfaction at some well-deserved payback. Would *you* want to make the Gryffindors mad? LOL. > > lizzyben: > > > > > > > > Slytherin students are the "bad guys", and also the "whipping boys" > > for the Gryffindor students. One role serves the other. If they > > weren't so bad, it wouldn't be so much fun to beat them up. > > Mike: > I'm going to shock you, because I essentially agree with you here and > in the part I snipped. JKR does have the good guy Gryffs throwing out > a lot of jinxes and hexes for laughs. I suppose she thought the > adolescent, slap-stick humor would appeal to the younger male > audience. Personally, I found Fred and George's one-liners much > funnier than their magical pranks. Though those pranks often set up > the one-liners. lizzyben: I'm not sure she did it to appeal to a specific audience; JKR has often said that she wrote these books for herself & I think that's her sense of humor. It's just different from my own - I don't like physical violence or slapstick much. And I also liked F&G's one-liners much better than their pranks. And I often found Draco & Snape funny, in their own way. In general, it seems like Slytherins are more about sarcastic verbal humor, while Gryffindors tend to go for the physical humor. And also, IMO we can't overlook the revenge theme, which I consider one of the most important themes of the series. JKR has said that writing allows you to get revenge on people, & IMO the beat-downs of Slytherins are a part of that. It's a type of wish-fulfillment. Mike: > I do think that most of the semi-dark magic used by HRH was > purposeful and justified. lizzyben: BIG disagreement here. Most of the time, they aren't using these hexes as self-defense, but simply because someone annoyed them or crossed them. And that wouldn't fly in the real world at all. These jinxes *hurt* people; they are violent. It's the equivalence of punching or burning someone because they said something mean or obnoxious to you. You can't DO that. In the real world, if Harry beats someone bloody, he can't claim "oh, he provoked me" as a valid excuse. Ginny can't claim that she's justified in hexing/hurting Smith simply because he annoys her. It's using violence to respond to an interpersonal problem. Anytime someone uses violence to retaliate for a non-violent insult, that's assault & battery, pure & simple. And that's a totally unjustified use of violent/dark magic. Mike: And, yeah, I wish she had put more jinxes > and hexes from the Slyth students in the mix to justify the "Dark > Arts" House motif she wants us to buy into. I suppose she thought > having most of the DEs being former Slyths was enough. But > considering the stage time imbalance in favor of the Gryffs, she > could have done much more to back up her proposition. > > Mike > lizzyben: And here we agree. But if you sell the image, you don't need the reality. How many books did we assume that the Slytherin students were into "Dark Arts" because Harry & JKR told us so? How easy was it to assume that Gryffindors *hated* dark magic & wouldn't use it - in spite of the evidence right in front of us? How easy it was to assume that Gryffindors had a right to dish out violence & pain to people simply because they are characterized as "good & noble?" How easy was it to go along w/the current & agree that Draco "deserved it", even though he was almost always the victim? After all, if he wouldn't keep saying things that make the Gryffindors angry, they wouldn't have to hit him. It's his own fault, really... And there we enter the mindset of an abuser or a bully. It's almost scary how easy it is to be emotionally manipulated into supporting violence. I keep thinking JKR is going to announce "this was a highly sophisticated experiment...." lizzyben From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 00:52:14 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:52:14 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176891 Allie wrote: > > WHAT, exactly was happening with Bathila and the snake in Godric's Hollow? I'm not sure what type of magic we're supposed to think that was. Bathilda was an inferius being controlled indirectly and from VERY FAR AWAY by Voldemort? Bathilda was an inferius being controlled by Nagini? Bathilda was a corpse being animated by the snake inside its body, and not an inferius? Nagini was LITERALLY inside Bathilda's body, waiting to slither out? Nagina was inside Bathilda's clothing, and only seemed to be slithering out of her >neck? > Jen replied: > I thought Nagini was possessing the dead body, using Bathilda's mouth to speak Parseltongue like LV used Harry's mouth while possessing him. Could Nagini do that with her soul piece? I figured it wasn't an Inferi because Harry and Hermione never talked about it as an Inferi. Now that you mention the idea it sounds plausible. Maybe it's an animated corpse with Nagini inhabiting the body until the time is right, speaking Parseltongue through the bewitched lips? I don't know! Repulsive. Carol responds: I thought as I read the scene the first time that Nagini had somehow been inside Bathilda's body, but since Bathilda had died some time before, I think the body would have rotted if there weren't something like an Inferius spell on it. Since Nagini is a Horcrux with a link to Voldemort similar to Harry's except that she can voluntarily summon him (rather like a DE with a Dark Mark but she can clearly send messages in words), I think that Jen is right and that Nagini has the power of possession. So, in essence, we have an Inferius possessed by Nagini for some time. And forgive me for adding to the repulsiveness, but since the chamber pot seems to have been used, it appears that Nagini was using Bathilda's body as her own for some time, creating the illusion that batty old Bathilda was still alive. (Of course, Rita's interview had to have occurred before she was killed as Bathilda!Nagini could only speak Parseltongue.) I don't see how a twelve-foot snake could get inside a tiny little old woman unless she (the snake) could somehow lose her physical form as LV did when he was possessing Harry in the MoM (and when he was possessing Nagini herself in OoP, as Snape said he was and as he must have been or Harry could not have seen from the snake's point of view). So, essentially, I agree with Jen. Bathilda is simultaneously an Inferius, which explains how she can do things like point and open doors that Nagini can't do (and also explains why the body didn't rot like an ordinary corpse) and a corpse possessed by Nagini, rather as the soul bit from the diary could possess Ginny, but for a longer term, since Nagini isn't really leaving her body, it just temporarily ceases to exist. I suppose it's also similar to LV possessing Quirrell long-term except that he didn't have a body of his own and could only briefly show his face through the back of Quirrell's head. Of course, it's also possible that Nagini retained her own form and Inferius!Bathilda waited quietly like the Inferi in the lake until Nagini sensed that it was time to use her body and then Nagini's will, which was so linked to Voldemort's as to be indistinguishable from it (even though they have separate existences), controlled the Inferius (Inferia, if the feminine gender still applies). Of course, I could be completely mistaken, but Snape's remark that LV has used Inferi in the past and might use them again (HBP Am. ed. 178) leads the reader to expect that they'll play a role in DH beyond the death of Regulus, and I'm inclined to believe that this horrific scene is the one foreshadowed by Snape's prediction. Carol, noting for Potioncat that "Inferi" is the correct plural and is used by both Snape (178) and the narrator (576) in HBP From mishbob88 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 00:47:34 2007 From: mishbob88 at yahoo.com (Michelle Wilkinson) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 00:47:34 -0000 Subject: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176892 > Allie: > WHAT, exactly was happening with Bathila and the snake in Godric's > Hollow? Michelle: I assumed it was polyjuice potion. But then again Lupin did say they would see magic as none of them has ever seen before. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 02:10:56 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 02:10:56 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176893 Pippin: > To me, the book is dark because beloved illusions die. At least, if you're > old enough not to believe in Santa Claus and TV-style heroes with > teflon moral standards, but you still want to. Kids need to believe > in those things. It's good for them. And then, when they're old enough, > JKR is telling us, they need, we need, to put those beliefs aside. > > Belonging to Gryffindor House can be an inspiration to extraordinary > virtue, but as it turns out, it doesn't guarantee even basic > humanitarianism. > > I re-read the exchange between McGonagall and Slughorn yesterday > and I about fell out of my chair. Here it is: > > "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes, > also, " said Professor McGonagall. "If you wish to leave with your students, > we shall not stop you. But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance > or take arms against us within this castle, Horace, we duel to kill." > > "Minerva!" he said, aghast. > > As well he should be. Look at what she said: if any Slytherins > side with Voldemort, Horace and the entire House will be > held responsible, and duelled to the death, ickle firsties and all. > And then, just to make sure we don't miss the point (ah, but we do, > because we're in the grip of our delusionary faith that JKR won't let > the other houses do anything really bad) the students draw wands > on the Slytherin table, most of whom are children. lizzyben: Yes. That moment is the moment when Hogwarts almost descends into mob violence & massacre. And no one, including the author, seems to realize it. I honestly think we are supposed to cheer there. Here we have a situation of extreme stress & tension - the Death Eaters are about to attack. And here are the Slytherin students, the "other", associated w/Death Eaters, Dark Arts, EVIL in general, and one just tried to point out our hero to the bad guys. And the new headmaster has just threatened to kill any Slytherin student who opposes their side. And 3/4 of the school has just risen and pointed their weapons at the table of Slytherin students. And every single one of those children has learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses. At that moment, Hogwarts is on the edge, the very razor edge, of genocide. It would take almost nothing to start it - one Gryf student hexes Pansy out of anger, one Slytherin student raises his wand out of fear, provoking a reaction from a Ravenclaw - and it starts. Once one side shoots a spell, the other side will retaliate, until all the students are shooting off curses at the other side. And here, the Slytherins are severely outnumbered. They wouldn't last long. If a conflict begins, the Slytherins would be massacred. It almost happened. We almost saw where scapegoating & dehumanization of the "other" leads to - mass violence. Pippin: > Harry, who once sprang between Sirius and Snape to keep them > from harming one another, is awestruck and overwhelmed. > > And people think Slytherin leaving en masse is supposed to be a sign > that *they* have no moral compass? Excuse me? > > You want to know where the good Slytherins went? They walked > out when the other houses turned to madness and evil, as > briefly deluded as Dumbledore once was. > > No, it's not obvious. But that's what all the folderol about the > Elder Wand is for, to slow us down, as Dumbledore said, and > make us *think*. lizzyben: Here's where I disagree, and where the series becomes something that frankly horrifies me. I don't think we're supposed to think; we're supposed to cheer. We're supposed to hiss at the awful Slytherins who want to betray Harry Potter, and cheer as the rest of the school raises their wands. McGongegal's statement isn't threatening - it shows how cool & take charge she is in handling these awful people. Here we have a society where teachers are threatening to kill students - and we're supposed to think that's perfectly acceptable. Pippin: > I'm not trying to take anything away from the courage and > sacrifice of those who fought in the battle, but we can as > adults admire what they did without having to believe JKR > wants us to see them as perfect in every way. Can't we? > > > Pippin lizzyben: If I thought JKR actually believed that, I'd agree. But she seems to support McGonegal's threat, and the other Houses raising wands against the Slytherins - seems to support labeling them as "evil", w/o ever seeming to understand where these concepts lead. And in a series that's supposed to be about tolerance & against bigotry. This is honestly one of the most disturbing books I've ever read, no kidding. I'm still fascinated by it. It somehow managed to perfectly capture the mindset of a genocidal society. It puts us in the minds of people who can commit these atrocities or human rights violations - and lets us understand how good people, people who want to do the right thing, can be pulled into doing horrible things, & can support violence against "the other". In that way, it even helps us understand the Death Eaters. It shows the deep, deep pull of tribalism, group identification, & projection onto the other. It might not intend to, but it definitely does. And in that way, these books do have a great deal to offer in terms of learning about bigotry & tolerance - just not the way JKR may have intended. lizzyben From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 02:15:04 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 02:15:04 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: <646FB1BB-5704-4783-A4F3-B898D506D6FB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176894 > > > Laura: > You are right, we don't know. But, as interested in knowing > everything as Hermione is, it seems odd to me that her parents > would choose to NOT know something. Hermione is in the > house that is known for courage, too. While courage may not > be hereditary, certain personality characteristics do seem to > be. With courageous and interested parents, I just can't imagine > that they would CHOOSE to change their lives so drastically by > moving to Australia and not knowing that they had a daughter. Lisa: If Hermione told her parents that she was not only asking them to do this for her to keep THEM safe, but to keep HER safe, I can easily see her parents reluctantly agreeing to it. Most parents would do anything to keep their child safe. Lisa From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 9 02:19:37 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 02:19:37 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/ a little of Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176895 > Alla: > > Sorry, till somebody tells me that I dreamed up that mentioning that > other students were subjected to blood quils, I disagree that it is > unsupported supposition. I think it is more than reasonable for > Marietta to know about that. > > So, to me she did betray them to torture and expalsion, but sure, > not death. Thus Marietta herself alive at the end IMO. > > And if you ask me who I think written as more horrifying Voldemort > or Umbridge, hmmmmm, before book 7 Umbridge wins hands down, now she > is still a bit ahead for me. Julie: I won't repeat Carol's post, except to say there is no canon evidence at all that Marietta or anyone else outside the Trio knew of Umbridge using the blood quill on Harry (which is very different from the other students knowing Harry was serving repeated detentions) or on Lee Jordan (who told Harry and likely the Twins). If we heard it mentioned even once by some other student, that would supportive evidence, but we don't. So it doesn't seem *more than reasonable* that Marietta knew about the blood quill. It is still *possible* of course, but canon makes it seem more likely she actually did not know. So I'll allow her to be innocent until proven guilty. > > Julie (earlier): > disagree with> > > > And what else...let's see... > > > > Peter passed on information to Voldemort for a period of months > (a year?) > > before he betrayed the Potters. > > Marietta never passed on any other damaging information in canon, > and has > > no reputation in canon for being untrustworthy among her peers. > > Alla: > > Marietta has never passed on any damaging information in canon? > Okay, I guess we disagree more than I thought. I consider what she > passed to Umbridge to be very damaging. Julie: Please reread. I said she never passed on ANY OTHER damaging information in canon that we know of, unlike motormouth Peter. Of course she tattled on the DA, and that was potentially quite damaging, though in reality it was only damaging to herself. > > And as I said, I say thank you Hermione for preventing possibility > of future Peter. I cannot exclude the possibility of Umbridge > telling Marietta to continue do so. > Julie: We'll just have to agree to disagree here, and I still consider my position more supported by canon ;-) Peter was passing on damaging information for a YEAR before he betrayed the Potters. Marietta passed on damaging information one SINGLE time that we know of, while under pressure (her mother was part of the Ministry, thus she was in essence working against her mother). There's not a shred of evidence that Marietta's character is at all like Peter's. She's guilty of that one action, but to extrapolate that she's inherently willing or capable of reaching the heights of evil that Peter from this one bad action is some pretty unfair prejudgment in my view. > Alla: > > I am afraid not. Not to me. The fact that Marietta did not do those > horrible things that Peter did I cannot credit to Marietta, only to > other people preventing her from doing that. The initial set up as > how everything started bears huge similarities to me. Julie: I'm at a loss. "Huge" similarities? Marietta betraying her friends who were opposing an organization to which her mother belonged versus Peter betraying his friends AFTER he'd been spying for a year for a known evil and murderous Dark Lord? I personally think it is a gross misjudgment to characterize Marietta by this one incident (when there is no other similar canon on her supposedly evil character) as someone like Peter, who has tons of canon showing his incredibly deficient and evil character both *before* as well as after his defining moment of betrayal. Let me reiterate that Peter *didn't* start out the way Marietta did, betraying his friends out of divided loyalties or even out of fear, as he could have refused to be their Secret-Keeper with Voldemort none the wiser. He was well on his way when he added that betrayal to his already considerable crimes.) > Julie: > > Basically the comparison is between a girl betrayed her friends > in a one-time > > school incident--a betrayal to be sure, and one that deserved some > sort of > > outing (though to my mind what she got was extreme), and a > boy/man who > > betrayed those who trusted him over and over again (giving info > to Voldemort) > > and his friends to certain death and to incarceration in a > hellhole prison, > > who > > also murdered a teenager without remorse and set up another one to > die, and > > who willingly and with complete foreknowledge resurrected a > psychopath and > > thus was partly responsible for dozens (perhaps hundreds) who > died during > > the second war against Voldemort. > > Alla: > > Yea, pretty much that is the comparison, except of course the > comparison is between the initial betrayal, if you wish. Not between > Pettigrew long career of betrayal. Thank you Hermione again IMO. Julie: See above. Same argument. Marietta and Peter alike...no. I'd add that if Marietta had it in her to become a Peter, why would Hermione's jinx stop her? Even with her memory wiped, I'm sure Cho and other told her why she was jinxed. If the whole school except Cho ostracized her, and she's left with these disfiguring pustules courtesy of Hermione, why does this girl with the so obviously evil nature just fade away into the background? Why isn't she furious at Hermione and trying to get back at her? Why isn't she furious at the whole school? Why isn't she stirring in her own evil juices, starting to do more and more evil things, taking up with Voldemort, who no doubt would offer her a refuge, etc? Seems the perfect path for someone already primed for evilness. Alla: > As far as I know Pettigrew could start exactly like Marietta did - > somebody from Voldie circle came to him, threatened or whatever ( > that is what he says in the Shack, no) and he was torned in his > loyalties or something ( or he likely was not) and it all started > from there. > > Only Marietta could not do any more damage. Whether she would want > to, it is of course arguable. But if we go by JKR's reaction, I > suspect she may want to. IMO of course. Julie: I don't pay much attention to JKR's comments. And all I did get from that one is that JKR loathes traitors, and would like to mark them for life. Nothing about Marietta's likelihood of repeating such incidents later. BTW, I also was left wondering just WHO betrayed JKR in school so that she was primed to set up this bit of the story? She does tend to use real people as her inspiration (for Snape, Lockhart, etc), so I suspect there was a real Marietta in her life, and she'd been waiting years to really give it to her good! > > Alla: > > Somebody once said ( do not remember who) that "eye for an eye" is > the most misunderstood punishment of Old Testament. It prohibits > vendettas and promotes proportional punishment. Word of agreement > with that sentiment. Julie: I'll rephrase then. I'm for merciful punishment and forgiveness, rather than excessive punishment and continued vengeful satisfaction at that punishment (Harry's satisfaction that Marietta still had the jinx acne/scarring in the 6th year). But that's just me, not anyone in the books, or in this case, JKR. Julie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 03:13:16 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:13:16 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/ a little of Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176896 > Carol responds: Only one other student in OoP receives a > similar detention, Lee Jordan, for telling Umbridge that she's > violating her own decree for telling the Weasley Twins not to play > Exploding Snap in class (OoP Am. ed. 551). Alla: Thank you. If only one student received this detention then sure, it is not as likely as I thought that Marietta knew about blood quill detentions, although I still see it as possible - Lee is a social guy IMO. Nevertheless, I stand by my opinion that what Marietta **saw** of Umbridge, namely what her decrees stated , if nothing else, made her a moral imbecile in my view, if she thought it was Okay to support her. One of her decrees says that anybody who has Quibbler would be expelled, would it not? And many others just as tyranically absurd in my view. Marietta has eyes and ears. I think what she saw should have been enough to know what Umbridge is. Alla: > > Marietta has never passed on any damaging information in canon? > Okay, I guess we disagree more than I thought. I consider what she > passed to Umbridge to be very damaging. Julie: Please reread. I said she never passed on ANY OTHER damaging information in canon that we know of, unlike motormouth Peter. Of course she tattled on the DA, and that was potentially quite damaging, though in reality it was only damaging to herself. Alla: Yes, reread. Sorry about that. Julie: I personally think it is a gross misjudgment to characterize Marietta by this one incident (when there is no other similar canon on her supposedly evil character) as someone like Peter, who has tons of canon showing his incredibly deficient and evil character both *before* as well as after his defining moment of betrayal. Let me reiterate that Peter *didn't* start out the way Marietta did, betraying his friends out of divided loyalties or even out of fear, as he could have refused to be their Secret-Keeper with Voldemort none the wiser. He was well on his way when he added that betrayal to his already considerable crimes.) Alla: Then so be it a gross misjudgment on my part ( and JKR's). I am ready to agree to disagree but wanted to address this point. For me Peter's betrayal **started** a year before he sold Potters to Voldemort- namely when he started giving Information to Voldemort or whoever approached him. I can totally see that starting same way or close to what Marietta did. After all, he was supposedly eighteen when he started doing it, wasn't it? Let me repeat to me that is what started his betrayal. I do not see him giving info as anything less than such. Only for a year he was betraying whole Order IMO not just his best friends. JMO, Alla From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 9 03:15:52 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:15:52 -0000 Subject: Slyths, Gryffs, & Chivalry/Map/Doge/Alastor/Countercurses/NHN/Marietta/Hagrid Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176897 Prep0strus wrote in : << '.... Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends.' This is the 'ambition' people speak of. but it's not just ambition. 'use any means to achieve their ends'. that goes way beyond ambitious, and is unable to be interpreted any way bug negatively. >> Would it scan to say 'use creative means'? Because, to me this is a reference (albeit negative) to a Water characteristic that I called 'versatile' in my previous post. Water uses a lot of means to achieve its goal of seeking the lowest level. It runs downhill until it encounters an obstruction (a dam). It might overpower the obstruction and carry it downhill along with the water. It might go around either side of the obstruction and seek new channels, which then deepen by use. It might, eventually, rise high enough to simply flow over the top of the obstruction. It might wait patiently to be able to do one of those things, and meanwhile it might leak into the ground and ooze circuitously through allegedly solid Earth and reach the water table and flow through dirt UNDER the bed of a western river or creek until it is consumed by plant roots or emerges as a spring .... That's without getting into ice. Because water expands as it freezes, simple little ice in the soil can push boulders out to the surface, and simple little ice in cracks can split boulders or concrete structures. Of course, even if Crabbe 'n' Goyle's ambition was to be valued servants of a leading Bad Guy, we haven't seen them trying diverse methods to achieve that goal. Carol wrote in : << Romilda Vane and Cormac McLaggen won't win any prizes for courage or loyalty or any other virtue >> Physical courage is one thing that the loathsome McLaggen doesn't lack. I can easily imagine him dying heroically on a battlefield, perhaps while trying to recover the body of a fellow soldier killed in the previous combat round. If it were his book, the kind of courage he would need to learn is strictly mental, the courage to say and mean: "I was wrong. I'm sorry." If it were his book, the other thing he would need to develop before the end is to value other people's input. Even Lockhart valued their input enough to steal it! As it is not his book, he is a thorough example of when Gryffindor traits are bad, such as foolhardiness, recklessness, inconsideration of other people, craving for fame. (Craving for fame is one of the traditional knightly-chivalrous characteristics. A big ego was viewed as a sign of a noble soul, a defect only for the lower classes, not a defect in its own right.) We don't know whether Romilda would volunteer for an almost-suicide attack on the enemy, or whether she would leap in front of an AK aimed at a child who is, for example, one of her students, rather than her own child. She does have enough courage (of an admittedly crude, McLaggen-like type) to have broken school rules and risked the embarrassment (as well as detention) of being caught, when she sent the Love Potion to Harry. Maybe she wanted Harry to be her escort just for prestige, or maybe she had a crush on him because of his heroic reputation that did not include having respect for his free will, but neither proves that she is not utterly loyal to her friends, nor that she won't truly love and value and be exasperated by the person she eventually marries. << The one Slytherin we see from that early era, the Bloody Baron, was motivated to commit a murder/suicide by unrequited love and spent the next thousand years or so as a ghost wearing chains to symbolize his repentance. >> Behavior that does not seem all that cunning, and did not achieve his goal. << And what's interesting *to me* is that the Slytherins have their virtues, love and courage for Snape and Regulus, family solidarity for the Malfoys, loyalty for Phineas Nigellus, and a kind of genial coming through in a pinch for Slughorn. >> The phrase 'Or perhaps in Slytherin, you'll find your true friends' right before the couplet that I quoted Prep0sterous quoting, makes me think that solidarity with fellow Slytherins and serious loyalty and love for close friends and family members are Slythie traits. That would include all those examples except maybe Slughorn supporting his fellow Hogwartians instead of his fellow Slytherins. Zgirnius wrote in : << I think she meant it as a stand-in for, basically, violence/the use of force, in real life. It is the jinxes, hexes, and curses that we constantly see witches and wizards of every stripe use in combat. Good wizards who use Dark Arts are like good Muggles who use violence reluctantly, tend to choose limited force when this is feasible, and use it only under special circumstances. >> But the knightly-chivalric noble soul yearns for violence and combat, in tournaments (which IIRC had a higher death rate than American football) and duels if wars and quests aren't available. Sali wrote in : << Of course, this then raises the question of how Fred and George worked out how to activate it correctly. I could explain it away but I suspecting it was just something else that wasn't thought through. >> We've been always wondering what Arithmancy is. Some say it is Numerology, because that is what Muggle dictionaries say, probably because 'mancy' means divination, but you can't always tell what a word means from its etymology. Others have suggested it is mathematics. Perhaps all are wrong and it is a set of structured methods for finding out the spell that is on an object. Then Bill would use it on cursed objects to find out how to dismiss the spell on them and the Twins used it on the Map to find out how to use it. Carol wrote in : << I was surprised at the nicknames Rita uses for Doge ("Dodgy" and "Dogbreath") because "doge" (related to "duke" and derived from "duc," Latin for "leader") is pronounced with a long "o." >> Was the Doge of Venice Dohdjz or Doh-Gay? Or Doh-Jay? I've always assumed the first. Dahdgey Dohdge is sufficiently alliterative, better than Dahdgey Doh-gay. Dawgsbreath is a little off with Dohdge or Doh-gay, but the Brit I knew best didn't pronounce 'aw' in dog. Maybe Doge as a wizarding surname is pronounced differently from the Doge of Venice. If it were pronounced 'doggy' would that work better for you? << According to Shelley's friend Peacock, "Alastor" means "an evil genius" (in the sense of evil spirit) or avenging daimon (attendant spirit). Should have been a bad guy with that name. >> Back when we were discussing GoF, I read web pages that phrased this information about 'alastor' differently. One said that an alastor is a male nemesis, both named after gods, Alastor and Nemesis. That struck me as a fine reason for JKR to give that name to a stubborn Auror. It occurs to me now that some of the other things on those pages then are also relevant. One spoke of an alastor being the personification of the skeleton in the closet that curses an entire family lineage -- and a secret fondness for the Imperius Curse is what cursed the last two generations of the Crouch family. And IIRC there was something about an alastor pursuing a person represents the person is suffering from schizophrenia hallucinations -- not TOO far different from Real!Moody's paranoia. Carol wrote in : << (as for "counterjinxes," what the heck are they?) >> I believe that counterjinxes are the same as countercurses. Wilbert Slinkhard was simply *factually wrong* when he wrote that "'counterjinx' is just a name that people give their jinxes when they want to make them sound more acceptable." In Potterverse, a countercurse/counterjinx is NOT a curse/jinx; it is a only a defense against a curse/jinx. One that comes immediately to mind is Fake!Moody teaching the about the Killing Curse (Avada Kedavra): "Not nice," he said calmly. "Not pleasant. And there's no counter-curse. There's no blocking it. Only one known person has ever survived it, and he's sitting right in front of me." Also in GoF, we have Hermione helping Harry prepare for the Third Task: "He was still having trouble with the Shield Charm, though. This was supposed to cast a temporary, invisible wall around himself that deflected minor curses; Hermione managed to shatter it with a well placed Jelly-Legs Jinx. Harry wobbled around the room for ten minutes afterwards before she had looked up the counter-jinx." PS/SS: "At that moment Neville toppled into the common room. How he had managed to climb through the portrait hole was anyone's guess, because his legs had been stuck together with what they recognized at once as the Leg-Locker Curse. He must have had to bunny hop all the way up to Gryffindor tower. Everyone fell over laughing except Hermione, who leapt up and performed the countercurse. Neville's legs sprang apart and he got to his feet, trembling." And Quirrelmort's confession: ""No, no, no. I tried to kill you. Your friend Miss Granger accidentally knocked me over as she rushed to set fire to Snape at that Quidditch match. She broke my eye contact with you. Another few seconds and I'd have got you off that broom. I'd have managed it before then if Snape hadn't been muttering a countercurse, trying to save you." In the latter three examples, the counter-curse removes the effects of its specific curse (Jelly-Legs Jinx, Leg-Locker Curse, broomstick curse). The broomstick example shows Snape's counter-curse can remove the effects of Quirrelmort's curse while that curse is still being cast. Presumably if the counter-curse was cast powerfully enough and fast enough, it could remove the effects of the curse before they even occured, thus serving to *block* the curse entirely. So Fake!Moody's "no counter-curse, no way to block it" would be repetition for emphasis. Lizzyben wrote in : << And [Nick] was so sorry, and cried, and tried to correct the spell, but he was still put to death. And we think wizarding justice is bad *now? Jeez. >> I thought it was the Muggles who beheaded him, as it was a Muggle whose teeth he messed. This was before the Statute of Secrecy;The Statue of Secrecy was 1692, according to Lexicon time-line. To me, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington was hanging out at the Muggle royal court with Muggles who knew he could do magic and requested some. I think it was Elilzabeth I's court, because he wears an Elizabethan starched ruff. That doesn't go with 1492, but it does go with 1592 and a 400th deathday party. Eggplant wrote in : << And right after that Marietta would have walked straight to Umbrage and told her everything. >> I don't think there was anything Marietta could have told Umbridge about DA right after the Hog's Head meeting that Umbridge didn't learn from Wally Widdershins anyway. Magpie wrote in : << No responsibilty for Hagrid at all (no surprise--this is the guy who sternly gives kids detention for saving his own a**). >> The only time I remember that kids got detention for saving Hagrid's bacon, it was not Hagrid who gave them detention. McGonagall gave them detention for being dashing all over the castle after curfew. She didn't believe that Harry was taking a dragon to the Astronomy tower; instead she thought it was a tale that Harry had put around to lure Malfoy out of bed to get caught and punished but that caught Neville as well. I don't know why she thought Harry and Hermione were out after curfew in that case. It is entirely possible that Hagrid felt guilty about Harry and Hermione and Neville getting detention for his sake, and tried to make it better by arranging for them to have a *pleasant* (in his opinion) detention. Altho' he couldn't have believed it would be pleasant for Neville to be teamed with Draco. What if McGonagall had known the real story, what if Hagrid had rushed in saying: "Don't give them detention, they were doing it for me!"? I think McGonagall would have given them detention anyway, because they WERE out of the House after curfew without a written pass from a teacher. But part of that is to not back down: if she had known the real story from the beginning, perhaps she would share their soft-heartedness about Hagrid and not give them detention, saying it was because they had verbal permission from a teacher, Professor Hagrid, to be out after curfew. I don't think McGonagall would turn Hagrid in to whoever enforces the law against dragon-keeping; at most, she would have told Dumbledore, who might have already known. But if Hagrid had rushed in to confess to save H&H from a detention, H&H would have been very irritated at Hagrid sacrificing his secrecy that they had sacrificed to protect. From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 9 03:59:12 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 03:59:12 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/Who was Pettigrew anyway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176898 > > Alla: > > Then so be it a gross misjudgment on my part ( and JKR's). I am > ready to agree to disagree but wanted to address this point. For me > Peter's betrayal **started** a year before he sold Potters to > Voldemort- namely when he started giving Information to Voldemort or > whoever approached him. I can totally see that starting same way or > close to what Marietta did. After all, he was supposedly eighteen > when he started doing it, wasn't it? > > Let me repeat to me that is what started his betrayal. I do not see > him giving info as anything less than such. Only for a year he was > betraying whole Order IMO not just his best friends. > Julie: I do see your point, I just don't agree. We see that Marietta tells on the DA for very specific reasons, because she let herself be talked into doing something she didn't want to do, and then became uncomfortable and conflicted by her loyalty to her mother when she realized the scope of the DA's intentions to subvert the Ministry. Peter wasn't uncomfortable with the Order's intentions or caught between conflicting loyalties (unless he really did like something about Voldemort's plans), but elected to work on a long-term basis for a clearly evil regime simply to save his own skin, AFAWK. I don't see any evidence that Marietta has the same core weakness or ability (and perhaps desire) to slide into pure evil as Peter did. I do admit we are hampered by the fact that Peter is hands-down the worst realized character in the books (IMO). We know almost nothing about his background, his childhood, his talents or ambitions separate from the Marauders (who were really made up of James and Sirius and two tagalongs). At one point Peter whimpers that he betrayed the Potters because he feared for his life, but why did he start giving information to Voldemort in the first place? Fear as his single motivation seems a bit strange to me (and I won't even go into how Peter possibly could have been sorted into Gryffindor when he possesses not even a single supposed Gryffindor trait--not in any overriding sense, as even Draco displayed courage in rare instances like trying to save Crabbe and Doyle from the Fiendfyre). Even if he was fearful, he made a lot of choices that weren't motivated only by fear. He could have refused the Secret-Keeper role and thus kept his friends James and Lily, and their child, safe. He didn't have to resurrect Voldemort, as he could have ensured his safety almost as well by leaving the country and living in France, Bulgaria, Australia or anywhere in the world as a rat while leaving Voldemort to potentially never find a way to regain a body. Still a risk maybe, but a small one, if Peter has any shred of decency or Gryffindor courage at all. Reasonably Peter needed other motivations, but the author never bothered to reveal them. Money, perhaps, or power, or revenge against his Marauder friends and other Order members who didn't really respect him but just patted him on the back occasionally like some stray dog they couldn't get rid of. Whether we entirely liked those resolutions or not, at least most of the other pivotal characters in the story finally got their due revelations in DH. But Peter Pettigrew remains a fuzzy spot on the tapestry, an enigma, the most un-Gryffindor like character ever to be sorted into Gryffindor. Julie From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 9 04:16:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 04:16:44 -0000 Subject: Slyths, Gryffs, & Chivalry/Map/Doge/Alastor/Countercurses/NHN/Marietta/Hagrid In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176899 > Magpie wrote in > : > > << No responsibilty for Hagrid at all (no surprise--this is the guy > who sternly gives kids detention for saving his own a**). >> > > The only time I remember that kids got detention for saving Hagrid's > bacon, it was not Hagrid who gave them detention. McGonagall gave them > detention for being dashing all over the castle after curfew. She > didn't believe that Harry was taking a dragon to the Astronomy tower; > instead she thought it was a tale that Harry had put around to lure > Malfoy out of bed to get caught and punished but that caught Neville > as well. I don't know why she thought Harry and Hermione were out > after curfew in that case. > > It is entirely possible that Hagrid felt guilty about Harry and > Hermione and Neville getting detention for his sake, and tried to make > it better by arranging for them to have a *pleasant* (in his opinion) > detention. Altho' he couldn't have believed it would be pleasant for > Neville to be teamed with Draco. Magpie: That's the detention I'm talking about. JKR didn't write Hagrid as guilty at all. It's like everyone involved has forgotten how Harry and Hermione got there and suddenly has Hagrid giving them stern orders about how they broke the rules so now they need to do detention. Whether or not McG would have given them detention anyway, Hagrid plays the part of objective giver of detention--and it's not pleasant, either. That is what I meant by Hagrid "giving them" detention--not that he was the one who assigned it, but that there's this whole ridiculous passage where he's in charge of it without any reference by anybody anywhere about how ridiculous that is. Hagrid not only doesn't run in to confess, he doesn't seem to remember there's anything to confess--and neither do the kids. -m From poorna05 at yahoo.co.in Sun Sep 9 04:26:10 2007 From: poorna05 at yahoo.co.in (pooja khurana) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 05:26:10 +0100 (BST) Subject: Harry Message-ID: <474857.95099.qm@web7902.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176900 Hi everyone , In the whole book HP7 Harry was in the state of calm. It was Voldemort who was really perturbed by Harry's presence. It seemed that Voldemort was now living in fear not of death (as he had taken steps to safeguard it) but in fear of Harry being alive. Also the attitude of Harry can be considered as heriditary to a certain extent only. I think, courage is something which is in the mind of people. It can only be seen when you have overcome a fear. In the end Harry had the courage to overcome his fear of death unlike Voldemort and surrender to it and hence become the master of deathly hallows. His courage came from his ability to love the people around him so much that he could sacrifice himself. That is real courage. pooja From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 07:09:05 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 07:09:05 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176901 > lizzyben: > > The whole Dark/dark thing just seems to be a matter of personal > interpretation Mike: Yep, lacking a definition from the author, what else do we have besides "interpretation"? Obviously I believe I am correctly interpreting canon. And you also see a difference between the Dark Magic of Inferi, Horcruxes, the Unforgivables, etc. and the not as dark Impedimenta, Stupefy, Petrificus Totalus, etc. So I guess I'm not understanding why you still say you don't see any difference. Unless you really do see Stupefy and AK as equally dark?! > lizzyben: > > > Harry says that MCG were attempting to ambush him on the train, but > they never even managed to get out one jinx - which is odd, if > they'd had wands drawn in waiting & Harry did not. Mike: My impression was that the erstwhile DA members saw Draco and co. walk past with wands out and sprang from their compartments hitting those three from behind, catching Draco and co. unawares. > lizzyben: > > > So the DA gang attacks MCG w/hexes & jinxes that Harry taught them > during their meetings. Harry was actually teaching dark magic! Mike: Hexes and jinxes that Hermione looked up in library books and taught Harry in GoF for the TWT. Sooo, how should this violate my moral sensibilities? And of course Draco and co. were only planning on hitting Harry with the tickling jinx,... yeah,... right! Since ALL jinxes, hexes, and curses designed to attack another being have some degree of dark to them, all we have to insist on is that everybody in the Potterverse plays nice, and we can eliminate all darkness. Hmmm, sounds like such an interesting universe, why didn't JKR write that one? > lizzyben: > By fifth year, the DA are the real masters of dark magic in the > school. Mike: Right, who are they to arm themselves against the Death Eaters? Why didn't they concentrate on those householdy spells that Tonks couldn't master and wash and dust the DEs into submission? I have no idea what you expected them to be learning in an alternate DADA class, could you give me an example of a non dark spell you think would be of value to them in a fight? (Besides Protego, which they did learn) Or, did you just expect them to not fight, to run away or submit to Voldemort? > lizzyben: > Isn't it ironic that Hermione lifts spells directly from the Death > Eaters? Mike: Nope, concept, not the Dark Mark itself. I believe that was quite clear. > lizzyben: > > About time! 5 years of Draco getting punched, jinxed, slashed, > sluggified, stomped on & humiliated, and he *finally* manages to > win a match. Once. That's his ever-so-brief moment of acting as an > actual rival, instead of a punching bag. Mike: I actually saw Draco's revenge in HBP as Karmic justice for the smack down he took in the GoF's train ride. But you are loosing me here with all these other supposed beat downs Draco took. My knowledge of canon in books 1 - 5 rivals Carol's (nobody betters Carol ), and I'm unaware of the vast amount of magical and physical violence you are claiming by the Trio against Draco. For instance, nothing in PS, the dueling club only in CoS (Draco out jinxed Harry 3 to 1 here), Hermione's slap in PoA and Draco dressed as dementor to try to get Harry to fall off broom again where Harry fires off his Patronus, the coincidental jinxes fired by Harry and Draco that hit Goyle and Hermione in GoF until the train ride, and Fred and Harry dropping the gloves on Draco after the Quidditch match in OotP. BTW, Draco getting ferret bounced was by a Death Eater, not a Gryff, not an Order member, and stopped by a Gryff (McGonnagall). Each of the above instances were HRH reacting to Draco's taunts against others, not taunts against themselves. I think it was right for the Trio to come to the defence of the others, I see nothing wrong with it. And where was all this dark magic? Two purely non magical fisticuffs, one coincidental magical attack and ONE magical attack. Against Draco's non magical dementor imitation and Draco's errant magical attack against Harry in GoF which resulted in the ferret bounce. > lizzyben: > > And think about it. Five years, and the Slytherins never *once* > successfully hex Harry. In contrast, Harry & co. jinx/hex Slytherins > quite often. Draco doesn't tend to resort to violence in the way the > Gryffindors do. He's all about the verbal taunts. Mike: Why is it Harry's fault that Draco is a bad shot? And where were all those successful jinxes/hexes of HRH against the Slytherins again? > lizzyben: > When you refer to Draco "bullying" the Trio in earlier train rides, > that's essentially what he's doing. And in book one, he actually > tried to make friends w/Harry. Mike: It's usually a good idea when attempting to make friends to bring along a couple of body guards and to make derogatory comments toward the one friend Harry has managed to make in his life. Evince ones upper crust breeding and then warn Harry that if he doesn't watch his step he could "go the same way of [his] parents". Hell of an effort on Draco's part. > lizzyben: > > The spin encourages us to overlook the > violence & nastiness of the Gryffindors' attacks. Mike: Broken record here, but again, I'm not seeing near as much violence as you seem to be convinced of. > lizzyben: > > Nah, I disagree. For a list, see my & Carol's earlier > post. By book 4, the Gryfs are using many semi-dark spells against > Draco & co. By book 5, they've become proficient at "dark" hexes & > willing to use them against their enemies in the IS who try to dock > House points. Mike: By book 4, huh? Could you give me one "semi-dark spell", let alone many? I'm assuming you mean in books 1 thru 3 when you say "by book 4", and I've acknowledge the train ride scene as the Only one. And which "dark" hex did a Gryff use against an IS member? We don't know who hexed Warrington or Pansy. > lizzyben: > Sorry, can't counter w/the mead & necklace - Draco wasn't > aiming at Gryfs or getting revenge, Mike: Geez, the two times Draco actually gets Gryffs and it doesn't count. What does this poor guy gotta do to get the credit due to him? Besides, he was aiming for a Gryff alumnus, Dumbledore. > lizzyben: > Big fat bullies is what they are. Two against one is disgraceful. So > is five against three (GOF stomp) or SEVEN against three (OOTP > stomp). Draco is consistently out-numbered & out-powered in these > little encounters, which means he ends up hexed, slugged, bloody, > unconscious and the good guys just end up w/a sense of satisfaction > at some well-deserved payback. Mike: Ya know, if Draco is going to insist on acting the ass, you'd think he'd learn to bring more backup with him. He continually taunts others until he finds the right buttons to push. Then he's surprised that people react to getting their buttons pushed. Not too bright for a bully, is he? > lizzyben: > Would *you* want to make the Gryffindors mad? LOL. Mike: Umm, No. So why does Draco persist in this endeavor? > lizzyben: > > And I often found Draco & Snape funny, in their own > way. In general, it seems like Slytherins are more about > sarcastic verbal humor, while Gryffindors tend to go for the > physical humor. Mike: I agree with Magpie, I found Draco hilarious in the CoMC classes. Of course part of it was watching him squirm when he was worried about what new creature he's about to meet. > > Mike: > > I do think that most of the semi-dark magic used by HRH was > > purposeful and justified. > > lizzyben: > > BIG disagreement here. Most of the time, they aren't using these > hexes as self-defense, but simply because someone annoyed them or > crossed them. Mike: Purposeful isn't always in self-defence. Hermione's hex of the DA roster was purposeful, not self defence, imo. Or as you put it, against someone who crossed them - purposeful. I think their use was justified, especially since most of the hexes and jinxes I saw them use were against DEs. > lizzyben: > And that wouldn't fly in the real world at all. Mike: Whoa. Hexes and jinxes don't exist in the RW, at least that I'm aware of. Potterverse is a different world, violence seems to be every day occurrences, and they have magic that reverses any damage quite easily. If you are trying to convince me I should apply my RW standards to the WW, I'll ask you, how? I don't have a wand, I can't take a potion to regrow bones, and if I fell off a broom from 100 feet in the air I'd be dead. How I got that broom to fly, I'm not sure. > lizzyben: > > > > And there we enter the mindset of an abuser or a bully. It's almost > scary how easy it is to be emotionally manipulated into supporting > violence. Mike: Not if you remember that you are discussing a book and the violence is more like cartoon violence in their world. After both of the train ride smack downs we saw Draco and co. reappear just fine in the following books. That's the way of this world. I accept that as a given. The only things that are not cartoon violence are torturing and death, they are presented as real violence. And on the GoF train ride home Harry has not two weeks prior experienced torture and narrowly avoided death, from the guy that killed his parents. Those deaths he was also forcibly reminded of in the Priori Incantatum scene. Now here comes the son of one of LV's followers, someone who knows that LV is back, and he decides it's a good time to taunt Harry and co. with their precarious position in their world. Harry already knows that LV wants him dead, he just doesn't know why. Then Draco makes light of Cedric's death. I not only understand Harry's reaction, I find that reaction entirely *justified*. You may say that I am being manipulated, I say that I am reacting logically to the situation that is being presented. Mike From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Sun Sep 9 09:02:51 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:02:51 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176902 > > Pippin: > > The DE's are there because the Carrows told Voldemort that Harry > > was at Hogwarts, the Carrows are at Hogwarts, symbolically, > > (though not literally) because the vanishing cabinet let them in, > > and it let them in because of what the twins did. That's plenty > > ironic and connected enough for me. > > Hickengruendler: Wouldn't Voldemort and the Death Eaters have been there anyway, after Voldemort learned about what happened at Gringott's. He was checking the cave by the sea and the ruins of the Gaunt's house, and he would have come to Hogwarts next anyway. McGonagall and the others still wouldn't have let him in, and he would have called the Death Eaters. I really don't see much difference, that the presence of the Carrows made in this case. Except that you could argue, that if it weren't for the Carrows and Snape in Hogwarts, Neville might never have called the Twins and the other Order and DA members in first place, so they wouldn't have been there to fight and wouldn't have died, but I find this too thin an argument to speak about Karma regarding Fred's death. Just like I don't see Snape's death as Karma either. I do however, think, that Rowling treated them the same in using some dark irony for their Death scenes, just like she did with Dobby and Sirius, and, to use an example from the other side, Wormtail. But I don't see Fred's death connected to the Vanishing cabinet incident, not even symbolically. If you would talk about Bill's disfigurement on the other hand, I might agree with you. ;-) Hickengruendler From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 9 11:48:20 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:48:20 -0000 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176903 Alla asked: > My question, if of course anybody desires to answer would be - did > you change your attitudes and expectations about the series while > you were reading them. > > I am not talking about finishing DH, just while you were reading > other six books. Potioncat: I can't recall very specific examples, but there were anticipations with each new book about the importance of events or characters. Most of the time JKR came up with something very different than what I expected and most of the time I was very amused at the difference. One example is the slow telling of Snape's backstory. I didn't expect Spinner's End and not till the very last few months before DH did I expect Snape knew Lily before Hogwarts. With each new book, I had to readjust who I thought Snape was and also, who James and Sirius had been. I was expecting more of an explanation for how they changed. Learning that Snape was a Half- blood was a big surprise and I expected some explanation of why a Half-blood would become a DE. I expected McGonagall to play a stronger role, and I'm a bit sad that she didn't. I also expected something different with Theo Nott's and Eileen's stories. It's very interesting to look at firmly canon-based fanfiction over the years. There will be certain trends and bam! out comes a new book and everything changes. It's a lot like T-Bay and sunk ships. From bartl at sprynet.com Sun Sep 9 15:29:02 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:29:02 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:Slyths, Gryffs, & Chivalry/Map/Doge/Alastor/Countercurses/NHN/Marietta/Hagrid In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E4113E.8030908@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176904 Magpie: > That's the detention I'm talking about. JKR didn't write Hagrid as > guilty at all. It's like everyone involved has forgotten how Harry > and Hermione got there and suddenly has Hagrid giving them stern > orders about how they broke the rules so now they need to do > detention. Whether or not McG would have given them detention anyway, > Hagrid plays the part of objective giver of detention--and it's not > pleasant, either. That is what I meant by Hagrid "giving them" > detention--not that he was the one who assigned it, but that there's > this whole ridiculous passage where he's in charge of it without any > reference by anybody anywhere about how ridiculous that is. Bart: I will admit that I did some reading between the lines here, so you can take it as you will. Isn't it a strange coincidence that Hagrid was the cause of the misbehavior, and that the detention was with Hagrid? Looking at Hagrid's personality, I don't think it was (and the later books confirmed my earlier suspicions). Now, to set a context, let's say that the detention Hagrid came up with was to go to Hogsmeade with him and pick up a bunch of candy from Honeydukes. Now, consider how Hagrid looks at the detention he gave the kids. From his point of view, this isn't a punishment; it's a fun outing (and Hagrid is not the only one who is guilty of this; in COS, Gildylocks gives Harry a dentention which, from Gildylocks' point of view, is more of an honor than a punishment). I really and truly think that if Draco had not been there, Hagrid would have said something like, "Sorry for getting you kids into trouble, so, to make it up, instead of punishment, we're going to have some fun!" Bart From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 9 16:04:17 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:04:17 -0000 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176905 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I decided that I am quite Okay with doing so. I mean it was easy > enough in a sense that I always adored Harry and liked Trio as a > whole, it was just sad to abandon my desire to see adults doing > something more than they did. > Marianne: While I, too, realized that the adults were really props to the Trio, I kept hoping to see more back-story on the page. I'm still left with unanswered questions about the Prank, what turned Sirius's attitude against his family background at such a young age, was Peter's treachery a slow slide, or did he jump in with both feet, what activities did DE Snape participate in, etc. All of this is incidental to the story line, and fanfic writers the world over have more leeway to develop their stories, but, still, it lessens my overall enjoyment of the whole series. My own issue, since obviously the books are "Harry Potter and..." and not "The MWPP Era and..." I guess the adults and all of their particular failings and quirks were more interesting to me than Harry and Co. dumbledore11214: > My question, if of course anybody desires to answer would be - did > you change your attitudes and expectations about the series while > you were reading them. >. Marianne: My expectations were that I would be ultimately somewhat unsatisfied because I felt that I was not going to like the end result of some of the themes of the books. And, look, I was right. I don't mean that I hated the last few books of the series. I just have some issues with what I felt were dissonances in JKR's writing. Like, the Unforgivables. I don't have a problem with the good guys using them in times of war, but, I'd have like to have seen at least a little reflection on how a line has been crossed in using these things. In GoF, Sirius gives us a picture of how dangerous and uncertain the times were and how, when the Aurors were granted powers to use these curses, Mad-Eye Moody, Auror Extraordinare, tried not to use them. I read that as him trying to keep the moral high ground, which meant he thought about why these were called Unforgivable and were not something to be used as a common spell. But, at the end, this is tossed out the window. Harry seems to have no compunction in using Unforgivables, and doesn't reflect on this at all. So, as the author herself has set up the moral strictures against using these Curses, I expected her to give me some sort of reasoning by her characters as to how they've decided that using them is okay. But, no, that's all gone by the wayside. I have issues with Hermione doing some of the things she has done, even though she may have done them with all good intentions - leading Umbrigde to the centaurs, the sneak curse, modifying her parents' memories, etc. She never seems to reflect on her actions. Nor does JKR seem to expect her to. Why? I guess because she's Hermione. I also felt that the whole business of House unity would actually go somewhere. But, no, it seems that Slytherins are still viewed with distrust and there don't seem to be a high percentage of them that JKR has viewed positively. I sometimes feel that the final few books of the series sort of took over from their author and careened along trying to fit in all of the various magical aspects of things, while keeping the secrets intact for the final big reveal(s) in DH. The result was that some character development and continuity of some of the themes were sacrificed. Marianne From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sun Sep 9 16:26:06 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:26:06 -0000 Subject: Marietta and Pettigrew/Who was Pettigrew anyway In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176906 Julie: > I do see your point, I just don't agree. We see that Marietta tells on the DA for very specific reasons, because she let herself be talked into doing something she didn't want to do, and then became uncomfortable and conflicted by her loyalty to her mother when she realized the scope of the DA's intentions to subvert the Ministry. Ceridwen: Just throwing this out there for consideration: In OotP, Percy writes a letter to Ron, warning him to distance himself from Harry and to trust Umbridge. Since Percy and his family have had a falling-out at this point, and since Ron didn't care much for him to begin with, Ron ignores this advice. Marietta, from all we know, which isn't much, may have had the same sort of letter from her mother. Don't trust that Potter boy, he's gaga, and so's his headmaster. Trust dear Dolores. Go to her if there's a problem. Marietta allows herself to get involved with the DA club because her best friend is in it. Tangent: Another thing I've been thinking about - sure, Cho may just have joined the DA because Harry was in it, and maybe Marietta joined solely because of Cho. But it's conceivable that one or both of these girls needed DADA for their future jobs, or were taking it because they like the subject. We know that in year six, courses are no longer mandatory as they are in years 1-5. Students take courses which are prerequisite for their future professions. The O.W.L. exams aren't the only reason students might want to join the DA - students who need DADA for their professions might want practical experience as well. So, it's possible that Cho and/or Marietta joined the club to further their practical studies in DADA. /tangent. So, Marietta is in the DA, learning practical applications of the theory being taught in her advanced DADA class, or just learning counter-spells against dark magic, and then it's suggested that they need to fight Ministry-approved Dementors. Marietta may remember the letter her mother sent her about gaga Harry and dear Dolores, so, uncomfortable with what she sees going on in the DA, she does what her mother tells her to do and goes to Dolores. Just a thought. Percy's letter makes it clear that the Ministry is very down on Harry. There's no reason to believe that he's the only Ministry employee who wrote such a warning to family at Hogwarts. Ceridwen. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 9 16:48:56 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:48:56 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176907 "Carol" wrote: > you forget that Marietta not only > doesn't know Harry (she's in a > different House and a different year) Many LOYAL DA members were in different houses and different years and many had parents who worked for the ministry (including Marietta's best friend CHO). And Marietta had been with Harry for about 6 months in the DA, and must have heard wonderful stories about what Harry did before his more controversial 5th year; and yet you ask me to say that it is reasonable for somebody who is not a moral imbecile to conclude that Umbrage is a better person than Harry. I don't think so! > she has also been reading in the Daily > Prophet that he's a liar As has Luna, but I don't see any pimples on her face. > You expect more of Marietta than is humanly possible If so then Luna is not a Human Being, nor are most members of the DA. > Marietta has no way of knowing that > Harry's claims are true and Umbridge's are false. When Umbridge says "hello" any reasonable person would conclude she is lying. > but in Marietta's view [ ] Who cares what her view was, who cares what she was thinking?! Whatever Marietta's view was it had absolutely no relationship to reality, either morally or physically. You keep saying that it's OK to be a monster as long as you do evil for this that and the other grossly ERONIOUS reasons, and I think that's utter nonsense. Explaining why somebody became a monster does not make them one bit less monstrous, and understanding is not the same as forgiveness. I believe it is unreasonable to expect Hermione to say: "I must not put a jinx on that parchment because the person who might betray us to torturers and murders could have had a bad childhood or a bad hair day or something. And pimples are far too horrible a punishment to give to a traitor who puts all our lives in danger and advances Voldemort's cause". There is a fine line between kindness and stupidity and if Hermione had done that she would have stepped way over the line. It would be the sort of thing that gives kindness a bad name. Eggplant From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 9 16:58:44 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 9 Sep 2007 16:58:44 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/9/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1189357124.12.68301.m37@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176908 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 9, 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 Sep 9 17:13:57 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:13:57 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176909 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Who cares what her view was, who cares what she was thinking?! > Whatever Marietta's view was it had absolutely no relationship to > reality, either morally or physically. You keep saying that it's OK to > be a monster as long as you do evil for this that and the other > grossly ERONIOUS reasons, and I think that's utter nonsense. va32h: A person's point of view is irrelevant to the way they perceive other people or their actions? I think *that's* utter nonsense. It doesn't matter if it's true or not - how many times has Harry's POV been at odds with the truth? And Marietta is now EVIL? Oh please. Just. Please. Evil on the scale of Voldemort, evil? Give me a break. But gosh, you know, you're right. Marietta got off easy with acne - Hermione should have dragged her out into the forest to be stomped to death by Centaurs. Goodness knows that the only person in the HP universe who is allowed to make stupid, adolescent, ill-informed decisions is Harry Potter, whose stupid, adolescent, ill-informed behavior is always excusable even when it kills (Sirius) or seriously injures (Draco, Hermione) other people or puts his friends in jeopardy (umm...every damn book). va32h From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 9 17:41:06 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 17:41:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176910 Pippin: > I re-read the exchange between > McGonagall and Slughorn yesterday > and I about fell out of my chair. Here it is: "If you wish to leave with your students, we shall not stop you. I can't see why that would give you vertigo, perhaps you should see a doctor about your dizziness "But if any of you attempt to sabotage our resistance or take arms against us within this castle, Horace, we duel to kill." Nor can I see why "we will duel to kill [any of you who attempts to sabotage our resistance]" should cause you distress. Must the good guys be absolute wimps ALL THE TIME EVERY TIME? > Look at what she said: if any Slytherins > side with Voldemort, Horace and the entire > House will be held responsible, and duelled > to the death, ickle firsties and all. I think not you have sentence Parsed that well very. Eggplant From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Sep 9 20:29:42 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:29:42 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Buckbeak and Draco In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E457B6.7080902@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176911 > Alla: > But I have to say that since I do not remember you expressing it > before. **Buckbeak** sucks in this scene? I mean, I can understand > blaming Hagrid. I do not blame him, I blame little bastard, but I > understand how you blame him. > > But Buckbeak sucks? Amazing. Random832: What most people on Draco's side in this thread are saying is: the fact that he's intelligent enough to be able to take Draco's words as an insult means he is morally obligated to have a certain degree of impulse control in his reactions to those words. ---- Random832: (not in reply to anyone in particular) One thing that keeps coming up w/ Marietta is that the anti-Marietta crowd are saying that we don't see Umbridge putting any pressure on Marietta therefore it must not have happened (even though it would be totally in character for Umbridge to do that), whereas even though we don't see any canon evidence for Marietta being psychic, nor any other way for her to know how nasty Umbridge is, she totally must have known. No, when we're not shown something either way, it ALWAYS has to be the way that supports _your_ argument. There is, put quite simply, no argument that supports Marietta not having been threatened / tortured / whatever into giving them up that does not ALSO support her not having realized what a terrible person Umbridge is. As for the decrees - we don't even know that the average student knows Umbridge is personally drafting them, as opposed to coming down from some committee. >> zeldaricdeau: >> I assume she, like me, interpreted the >> name "Dumbledore's Army" as not completely >> literal. > > eggplant107: > I've lost count how many times I've said this in the last few days but > if so that is YET ANOTHER thing she was dead wrong about. Um, it _wasn't_ literal. It was a joke. It's canon that Dumbledore had nothing to do with it. Perhaps you mistook the lie Dumbledore told in an attempt to shift the blame off of Harry for a fact. From random832 at fastmail.us Sun Sep 9 20:29:47 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:29:47 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Bathilda + the snake In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E457BB.4060600@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 176912 >> Ceridwen: >> I think the plural is "Inferi". > > Potioncat: > I agree with inferi, but I'm not sure JKR would ;-) Random832: We're told "inferi"; in fact, this is before we're told the singular - "inferi" isn't even a proper latin plural for "inferius" - it would have to be "inferii" in that case. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 9 20:54:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:54:23 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176913 lizzyben wrote: > > Yes. That moment is the moment when Hogwarts almost descends into mob violence & massacre. And no one, including the author, seems to realize it. I honestly think we are supposed to cheer there. > > Here we have a situation of extreme stress & tension - the Death Eaters are about to attack. And here are the Slytherin students, the "other", associated w/Death Eaters, Dark Arts, EVIL in general, and one just tried to point out our hero to the bad guys. And the new headmaster has just threatened to kill any Slytherin student who opposes their side. And 3/4 of the school has just risen and pointed their weapons at the table of Slytherin students. And every single one of those children has learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses. Carol responds: I agree with you to some extent--McGonagall [the interim headmistress, not the new "headmaster"--I thought for a moment that you meant Snape] is assuming the worst of the Slytherins based on one student's (Pansy Parkinson's) behavior, and she has become rather murderous here, ready to kill even first-years, apparently, if they side with Voldemort. (The likelihood of their doing so, given Slughorn as their HoH and no known DE parents other than Malfoy, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle, is rather slim, however.) I dislike Mcgonagall's behavior from the moment she calls Harry's Crucio gallant. Her behavior--dismissing the entire House and allowing the other students to point wands at them--suggests that, in her view, the Slytherins are guilty until proven innocent. Whether the reader is supposed to approve of her conduct or not is another matter. I certainly didn't and don't. The best that can be said of it is that it allowed all but three Slytherins to escape from the battle without choosing a side, along with the younger students from all the Houses and the older students from G, R, and H who were either cowardly or uncommitted. But I think you're assuming a bit much in stating that "every single one of those children has learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses." After all, Snape has been the headmaster for the entire year and he has promised Dumbledore that he'll protect the Hogwarts students. He would do as much as he could to control the Carrows. He would, for example, make sure that the curses that the new "DADA" teacher, Amycus Carrow, taught were "age appropriate," just as Umbridge had tried to do at the opposite extreme the previous year. Learning *about* the Unforgiveable Curses was supposed to be reserved for the sixth year (see GoF), so, under Snape (hired by the new Ministry, which still includes Umbridge as Senior Undersecretary to the Minister, actually *learning* those curses would probably be reserved for sixth and seventh years. After all, Snape is attempting to maintain a respectable front and at the same time, avert the suspicions of the DEs that he's undermining them. At any rate, there's no indication that Neville, for example, has "learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses." Not even Draco, who has been forced by Voldemort to use the Cruciatus Curse outside of school, is accused of using it on fellow students. Only Crabbe and Goyle are mentioned as doing so. Also, Fake!Moody tells the fourth-year Gryffindors that Avada Kedavra requires both power and the will to kill and doubts that all of them saying it together and pointing their wands at him would result in so much as a nosebleed. Harry, after performing his first successful, says that "you have to really mean it." So, yes, I can understand your being upset by McGonagall's attitude and I can't disprove your assumption that we're supposed to approve of it. But let's not exaggerate. Snape is a good guy. He's not going to let the Carrows teach the Unforgiveable Curses to underage students. Just as he found a reason to get Carrow to stop Crucioing Harry and get all the DEs off the Hogwarts grounds in HBP, it stands to reason that he would argue that it was undesirable to teach students with wizarding blood to kill and torture one another in the corridors. If nothing else, he might suggest that the other three Houses would gang up on the Slytherins. We have no evidence that any student other than Crabbe and Goyle used the Cruciatus Curse on any other. No one states that they used the Imperius Curse. And until the scene in the RoR, there's no indication that even Crabbe has attempted to kill anybody. No one has been killed on Hogwarts grounds during Snape's time as headmaster, and most of the torturing has been done by the Carrows. I'm not sure what spells the adult Order members are using, but Neville and the DA members are not using Unforgiveable Curses. Neville, in fact, fights with either plants or the Sword of Gryffindor. Carol, reading "we duel to kill" as applying only to staff and "of age" students From sherriola at gmail.com Sun Sep 9 21:10:26 2007 From: sherriola at gmail.com (Sherry Gomes) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 14:10:26 -0700 Subject: Draco and Buckbeak In-Reply-To: <46E457B6.7080902@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <46e46154.16538c0a.0689.2997@mx.google.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176914 Random832: What most people on Draco's side in this thread are saying is: the fact that he's intelligent enough to be able to take Draco's words as an insult means he is morally obligated to have a certain degree of impulse control in his reactions to those words. Sherry: My experience with animals, 32 years working with guide dogs, a dog who is not only constantly with me, but dependent on me to direct, correct, praise and care for it, I can say that I never once thought Buckbeak reacted to Draco's mere *words*. Animals respond to tone, to body language, things like that. I can tell my dog she is a bad girl, in a high cute silly voice, and she thinks I'm telling her she's great and wags and wiggles and is very happy. On the other hand, I can tell her she's good in a stern unfriendly voice and she won't believe she's just been praised. Voice inflection and body language are all part of working with a guide dog. I have to stand, walk and move in certain ways to instill confidence in her, use hand gestures, body and feet positioning along with verbal commands. She responds to the body language even if she doesn't know the words I've said, or if I give the wrong command, like saying left when I mean right. For instance, to do a left turn, I say, Bianca left, with a slight question in my tone to indicate that she should only turn if it's safe. I accompany this word by gesturing to the left, at her level, and my turning my body to face the direction. I always thought Buckbeak was responding to Draco's attitude and tone, not his words. That's something that makes complete sense to me. Sherry From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sun Sep 9 21:33:10 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:33:10 -0000 Subject: JKR's Latin In-Reply-To: <46E457BB.4060600@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176915 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > >> Ceridwen: > >> I think the plural is "Inferi". > > > > Potioncat: > > I agree with inferi, but I'm not sure JKR would ;-) > > Random832: > We're told "inferi"; in fact, this is before we're told the singular - > "inferi" isn't even a proper latin plural for "inferius" - it would have > to be "inferii" in that case. Geoff: JKR's Latin leaves a little to be desired on occasions. Whether that is deliberate or not is open to question - perhaps some of the Latin used for spells etc. has been deliberately changed. Taking some examples, "Finite Incantatem" should correctly be "Finite Incantamentum". I would have expected spells to use the imperative form - 'cruci' and 'imperi' but 'crucio' appears to be 1st person singular 'I torture' rather than 'torture!' and the Imperius curse, using this format ought to be 'Impero'. Interestingly, "finite" mentioned above *is* an imperative and a plural form to boot. A different puzzle is "Wingardium Leviosa" as there are virtually no Latin words using 'w' and I can't trace 'leviosa'. And that's only a flavour. So "herself's" Latin is decidedly suspect..... :-) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 9 21:44:47 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 21:44:47 -0000 Subject: Draco and Buckbeak In-Reply-To: <46e46154.16538c0a.0689.2997@mx.google.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176916 > Random832: > What most people on Draco's side in this thread are saying is: the fact that > he's intelligent enough to be able to take Draco's words as an insult means > he is morally obligated to have a certain degree of impulse control in his > reactions to those words. > > > Sherry: > My experience with animals, 32 years working with guide dogs, a dog who is > not only constantly with me, but dependent on me to direct, correct, praise > and care for it, I can say that I never once thought Buckbeak reacted to > Draco's mere *words*. Animals respond to tone, to body language, things > like that. Magpie: That's adding things that aren't necessarily there, because I believe all we're told about what Malfoy is doing is that he's petting him. Your dog doesn't react to "insults" at all. S/he can only react to tone of voice and body language that come across as animal things-- dominance, aggression etc.--though s/he might recognize certain words s/he knows already. Buckbeak is actually supposed to react to *insults* because he is *proud*. That's absolutely not what you're describing. Buckbeak is acting on totally human-like emotions and understanding in the scene according to that warning--he's proud and you've insulted him. Not tone, not body language--more importantly, not provocation or threat. He's insulted because of his pride, which only humans can be. There's no indication at all that Draco's tone or body language is anything a real animal would have a problem with or not. And if it was, then his problem wouldn't be that he insulted him! Now, that doesn't mean that I'm saying Draco is completely innocent because obviously he did the thing that had he listened he would know was the thing that would cause an attack. But I still see the same bait and switch in the animal's creation--he's doing something that implies higher thought but it's being called an instinct. It's like having an animal who attacks if you disagree with his opinions about art. It's taking a human behavior and pretending it can exist without human understanding of language. -m From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 9 23:29:53 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:29:53 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176917 > Carol responds: > I agree with you to some extent--McGonagall [the interim > headmistress, not the new "headmaster"--I thought for a moment that > you meant Snape] is assuming the worst of the Slytherins based on > one student's (Pansy Parkinson's) behavior, and she has become > rather murderous here, ready to kill even first-years, apparently, > if they side with Voldemort. (The likelihood of their doing so, > given Slughorn as their HoH and no known DE parents other than > Malfoy, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle, is rather slim, however.) I > dislike Mcgonagall's behavior from the moment she calls Harry's > Crucio gallant. Her behavior--dismissing the entire House and > allowing the other students to point wands at them--suggests that, > in her view, the Slytherins are guilty until proven innocent. Jen: McGonagall was trying to cool down a very heated moment without injury or death imo. Pansy's has a history of associating with a former student who became a DE and two other Slytherins who have been praticing the Cruciatus on students 'who have earned detentions' as Neville said in The Lost Diadem chapter. Pansy states her intention to turn Harry over at Voldemort's request: "But he's there! Potter's *there*! Someone grab him!" (Chap. 31, p. 610, US) The students who stand are warning that anyone attempting to take Harry will have to do so by force and will be outnumbered. Had MgGonagall done nothing at that point *then* I might say she made a grave error. She's trying to prevent violence and get on with preparations for the battle as the minutes tick away. There's no time to sort out which Slytherins might have connections to Voldemort and which are Hogwartians. Even if some Slytherin students stay behind, their loyalty is tainted by association. What else did others think was a better solution at that point given the context? Carol: > After all, Snape has been the headmaster for the entire year and he > has promised Dumbledore that he'll protect the Hogwarts students. He > would do as much as he could to control the Carrows. He would, for > example, make sure that the curses that the new "DADA" teacher, > Amycus Carrow, taught were "age appropriate," just as Umbridge had > tried to do at the opposite extreme the previous year. Learning > *about* the Unforgiveable Curses was supposed to be reserved for > the sixth year (see GoF), so, under Snape (hired by the new > Ministry, which still includes Umbridge as Senior Undersecretary to > the Minister, actually *learning* those curses would probably be > reserved for sixth and seventh years. After all, Snape is > attempting to maintain a respectable front and at the same time, > avert the suspicions of the DEs that he's undermining them. Jen: The students have been under pressure all year from the Carrows which in my understanding greatly enhanced the split between the houses. I'm sure Snape did what he could to protect the students but his hands were tied by his secret allegiance, and violence and torture of students sounded like a regular affair the entire year. If it wasn't happening directly to students, they were observing what happened to others. It's too much to reprint here, but on pages 573-576 from The Lost Diadem chapter (US ed.), Neville talks about various events the Carrows were responsible for, including: Having students (plural) practice the Cruciatus curse on others who received detention (Neville points out a deep gash on his cheek at this point); the Carrows tortured 'mouthy' students but don't want to spill too much pure blood so they stop short of killing them; chained up a first year; caused students to think twice about trying to help other kids after torturing Michael Corner 'pretty badly' for attempting to release the chained-up first year; kidnapped kids to force relatives to behave; attempted to go for Gran when they couldn't stop Neville from fighting back..... It doesn't sound like Snape was able to stop the Carrows from doing much when it came to punishment except those times when he was able to step in to divert the punishment, like when he assigned Ginny et. al. to detention with Hagrid. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 9 23:37:04 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:37:04 -0000 Subject: harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176918 Pooja: > In the whole book HP7 Harry was in the state of calm. It was > Voldemort who was really perturbed by Harry's presence. It seemed > that Voldemort was now living in fear not of death (as he had taken > steps to safeguard it) but in fear of Harry being alive. Jen: Voldemort's fear/anger of Harry was heightened when he learned Harry knew about the Horcruxes and was destroying them, which did tie in with Voldemort's fear of death. At the core of LV's desire to kill Harry was always the fear Harry would destroy him first, back to what Dumbledore said in HBP: "Have you any idea how much tyrants fear the people they oppress? Voldemort is no different! Always he was on the lookout for the one who would challenge him." (Chap. 23, p. 477, UK ed.) Jacob: > In book 7 Harry's grown up and shows true courage. Who does he get > it from, his mother or father? Pooja: > Also the attitude of Harry can be considered as heriditary to a > certain extent only. I think, courage is something which is in the > mind of people. It can only be seen when you have overcome a fear. Jen: I've read that certain personality traits along continuums are considered to have a genetic basis, such as novelty-seeking vs. novelty aversion. How a person feels about a risk isn't courage though; like you said, courage is generally understood as taking an action in the face of fear. Courage is more of a learned behavior I think, a behavior both a risk-taker and risk-avoider are capable of since everyone fears something! Pooja: > In the end Harry had the courage to overcome his fear of death > unlike Voldemort and surrender to it and hence become the master of > deathly hallows. His courage came from his ability to love the > people around him so much that he could sacrifice himself. That is > real courage. Jen: Nice summary. Nothing I can add here. :) From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 00:06:52 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:06:52 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176919 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > lizzyben wrote: > > > > Yes. That moment is the moment when Hogwarts almost descends into > mob violence & massacre. And no one, including the author, seems to > realize it. I honestly think we are supposed to cheer there. > > > > Here we have a situation of extreme stress & tension - the Death > Eaters are about to attack. And here are the Slytherin students, the > "other", associated w/Death Eaters, Dark Arts, EVIL in general, and > one just tried to point out our hero to the bad guys. And the new > headmaster has just threatened to kill any Slytherin student who > opposes their side. And 3/4 of the school has just risen and pointed > their weapons at the table of Slytherin students. And every single one > of those children has learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses. > > Carol responds: > > I agree with you to some extent--McGonagall [the interim headmistress, > not the new "headmaster"--I thought for a moment that you meant Snape] > is assuming the worst of the Slytherins based on one student's (Pansy > Parkinson's) behavior, and she has become rather murderous here, ready > to kill even first-years, apparently, if they side with Voldemort. > (The likelihood of their doing so, given Slughorn as their HoH and no > known DE parents other than Malfoy, Nott, Crabbe, and Goyle, is rather > slim, however.) lizzyben: It depends, we don't know. Parkinson did. The point is not so much the likelihood, but McGonegal's seeming willingness to hold Slytherins as a group responsible for the actions of any one individual. She has ceased to see them as individual human beings, as sees them instead as a mass of "them", indistinguishable & dehumanized. Carol: I dislike Mcgonagall's behavior from the moment she > calls Harry's Crucio gallant. Her behavior--dismissing the entire > House and allowing the other students to point wands at them--suggests > that, in her view, the Slytherins are guilty until proven innocent. > Whether the reader is supposed to approve of her conduct or not is > another matter. I certainly didn't and don't. The best that can be > said of it is that it allowed all but three Slytherins to escape from > the battle without choosing a side, along with the younger students > from all the Houses and the older students from G, R, and H who were > either cowardly or uncommitted. lizzyben: They were very, very lucky. In that moment, when the entire school points their wands at the Slytherin kids, they have the support of an authority figure to kill traitorous Slytherins. They have been totally desensitized to violence thanks to the torture & beatings they've seen. And they all have a deep-seated rage against the pain & injustice they've suffered, a weapon pointed, and a table of scapegoats right in front of them. And really, those kids are awful people anyway, evil, monkey-like, barely even human. Wouldn't it be better to just get rid of them now before they can get us? McGongegal seems to agree, when she forces the Slytherins to leave the school - it was an exorcism of the demons. I know a little bit about the psychology of mass violence, and while reading this story, I could tick off each of the stages of genocide in my head. (Separation, symbolization, dehumanization, demonization...). When McGonegal threatens to kill the Slytherin students, & the entire school aims their wands at the Slytherin table, Hogwarts teeters dangerously on the brink of the last stage - extermination. So, I was totally horrified by that point - she *wouldn't* endorse killing Slytherin students, she *wouldn't*... would she? Carol: > But I think you're assuming a bit much in stating that "every single > one of those children has learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses." > After all, Snape has been the headmaster for the entire year and he > has promised Dumbledore that he'll protect the Hogwarts students. He > would do as much as he could to control the Carrows. He would, for > example, make sure that the curses that the new "DADA" teacher, Amycus > Carrow, taught were "age appropriate," just as Umbridge had tried to > do at the opposite extreme the previous year. Learning *about* the > Unforgiveable Curses was supposed to be reserved for the sixth year > (see GoF), so, under Snape (hired by the new Ministry, which still > includes Umbridge as Senior Undersecretary to the Minister, actually > *learning* those curses would probably be reserved for sixth and > seventh years. After all, Snape is attempting to maintain a > respectable front and at the same time, avert the suspicions of the > DEs that he's undermining them. lizzyben: Let's listen to Neville's report about what was going on at Hogwarts: "(The Carrows) are in charge of all discipline. They like punishment, the Carrows. Amycus, the bloke, he teaches what used to be DADA, except now it's just the Dark Arts. We're supposed to practice the Cruciatus Curse on people who've earned detentions - " "WHAT?" ... "Yeah," said Neville. "That's how I got this one," he pointed to a particularly deep gash in his cheek. "I refused to do it. Some people are into it, though; Crabbe and Goyle love it." ... "They don't want to spill too much pure blood, so they'll torture us if we're mouthy but they won't actually kill us." "... then Micheal Corner went & got caught releasing a first-year that they'd chained up, and they tortured him pretty badly." So, students are being forced to use Unforgiveable Curses against other students that are in detention. Neville says that this is part of their new "Dark Arts" class. He doesn't indicate any division by age or class, but says that all students are learning Dark Arts. If you want to, I guess you could assume that maybe he only meant other seventh-years were learning Unforgiveable Curses, but there's no indication of that in the text. Carol: > At any rate, there's no indication that Neville, for example, has > "learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses." lizzyben: Only because Neville refused to do it! And he was then tortured himself as punishment for refusing. How many students are going to have Neville's courage to stand up to the Carrows? Students were REQUIRED to practice the Unforgiveable Curses against other students as part of their class. Carol: Not even Draco, who has > been forced by Voldemort to use the Cruciatus Curse outside of school, > is accused of using it on fellow students. Only Crabbe and Goyle are > mentioned as doing so. lizzyben: That's misleading. Only Crabbe & Goyle are mentioned by name. But Neville says that "we" in general are being forced to use the Cruciatus Curse as part of their Dark Arts class, and that "some people" are really into it - including C&G. C&G are not the only students using these curses. All sixth years, at least, are being forced to practice these curses against people - w/some actually enjoying it. The Carrows are sadistic Death Eaters - would they really restrain themselves in which classes they teach these Dark Curses? I really doubt it. Carol: Also, Fake!Moody tells the fourth-year > Gryffindors that Avada Kedavra requires both power and the will to > kill and doubts that all of them saying it together and pointing their > wands at him would result in so much as a nosebleed. Harry, after > performing his first successful, says that "you have to really mean it." lizzyben: Harry manages one w/o practice, Draco apparantly does so (even against his will), C&G do, & apparently the entire Dark Arts class is being forced to do so. Carol: > So, yes, I can understand your being upset by McGonagall's attitude > and I can't disprove your assumption that we're supposed to approve of > it. But let's not exaggerate. Snape is a good guy. He's not going to > let the Carrows teach the Unforgiveable Curses to underage students. lizzyben: At that point in the book, I stopped caring whether Snape was a good guy or not. Whichever side he's on, if students are being tortured by Death Eaters, he's not doing enough. And we KNOW the Carrows were teaching the Unforgiveable Curses's to sixth years, who are mostly underage students. I think it's reasonable to assume that they were teaching other classes the curses as well. Carol: > Just as he found a reason to get Carrow to stop Crucioing Harry and > get all the DEs off the Hogwarts grounds in HBP, it stands to reason > that he would argue that it was undesirable to teach students with > wizarding blood to kill and torture one another in the corridors. If > nothing else, he might suggest that the other three Houses would gang > up on the Slytherins. lizzyben: Except, according to Neville, students were learning just that. It only stands to reason to think Snape would prevent that if there's nothing to the contrary in canon. But here, Neville states flat-out that students are being taught to torture one another (and actually forced to practice doing just that). Carol: > We have no evidence that any student other than Crabbe and Goyle used > the Cruciatus Curse on any other. No one states that they used the > Imperius Curse. And until the scene in the RoR, there's no indication > that even Crabbe has attempted to kill anybody. No one has been killed > on Hogwarts grounds during Snape's time as headmaster, and most of the > torturing has been done by the Carrows. lizzyben: See above, contradicted by canon. We hear directly about the Cruciatus Curse, and also know that Carrow is teaching a Dark Arts class. If he's teaching one Unforgiveable Curse, stands to reason that he'd teach them all. We don't know one way or the other. Maybe *most* of the torturing is done by Carrows - but if the Dark Arts classes are being forced to torture other students, that's a lot of other students who are torturing people. I do give Snape some credit for preventing any deaths at Hogwarts. Imagine how McGonegal felt, watching all this, watching her students being beat up & tortured, as the Head of Slytherin House oversees it. Watching DD's murderer take over w/his DE friends. Wouldn't she be filled w/rage at Snape? Wouldn't she start to hate Slytherin House in general? She does try to kill Snape, uses an Unforgiveable Curse, & then threatens the entire Slytherin House w/death. She's lost it, pushed beyond the brink by the stress & anger she's experienced. And she's lost the ability to distinguish Slytherin students as individuals, but instead totally associates them w/the Death Eaters, Snape, murder & evil. She's fallen perilously close to approving of killing Slytherins in general as revenge on the Death Eaters. Carol: > Carol, reading "we duel to kill" as applying only to staff and "of > age" students lizzyben: You can read it that way, if it makes you feel better. But she refers to "ANY of you" Slytherin students. I think McGonegal had reached her breaking point. Clearly, at least seventh-years had practiced Unforgiveable Curses, and the entire school had taken Dark Arts classes. IMO, the Carrows were probably teaching all the students these Curses, & that isn't contradicted in canon. Even if you want to assume that only seventh-years knew Dark Curses, that doesn't really affect my point. The Slytherins are at a huge disadvantage, no matter what. My point wasn't really about how many levels learned Unforgiveable Curses, but that all the students had been taught Dark Arts, all of them had witnessed or suffered torture, all of them were afraid & angry & on edge. They had suffered a year of hell, under a Slytherin Headmaster, w/2 Slytherin Death Eaters. And there's the table of Slytherin students - one of whom has just betrayed their savior. The Slytherins have been dehumanized, even demonized, until they don't even seem human anymore - and they all can be considered guilty by association. It wouldn't take much for one student to feel enough anger, fear or hatred in that moment to fire off a curse at the Slytherin table - and the firefight begins, a firefight the Slytherin kids could not win. It *would* be a massacre & it was only narrowly avoided. They're good people, McGonegal is a good person, but they could've committed an atrocity. And that's how mob violence works. lizzyben From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 00:21:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:21:13 -0000 Subject: Buckbeak and Draco/ Intelligent animals in phantasy and fairy tales In-Reply-To: <46E457B6.7080902@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176920 > Random832: > What most people on Draco's side in this thread are saying is: the fact > that he's intelligent enough to be able to take Draco's words as an > insult means he is morally obligated to have a certain degree of impulse > control in his reactions to those words. > Alla: I understand, I just disagree. Although there is a really wonderful post in the recommended posts about Draco doing what he did to Buckbeak as sentinent being, highly recommend it. Buckbeak is an intelligent **magical** animal, I disagree that his intelligence is nearly as high or even close as to consider him to be **humanised**. His instinct is to attack those who insult him. That means that he is human - like and has to take responsibility for what he did? There are plenty of magical creatures in Potterverse and mythology who show the intelligent behavior, in a sense their magical quirks, no? Phoenix sings for pure of heart, doesn't it? Soooo, if he suddenly decides to **attack** somebody who is not pure of heart, does it mean that phoenix should be held responsible for that? Sphinx is dangerous for those who want to take a treasure sphinx is guarding, so if sphinx attacks them, sphinx is responsible as human now? Hmmm, Unicorns were brought before, but I will just say again, since I think it is a great example. What if they decide to attack somebody who wants to catch them, because that somebody is not a virgin? Um, bad unicorn, but still not human like at all to me - animal acting because of instinct IMO. Now, I certainly saw the humanised animals in fairy tales. Like when in russian fairy tales supremely intelligent wolf or stallion helps the hero on the quest to save the girl from captivity or get the resurrection apples, or something like that. Sure, absolutely, those animals act and think like humans in animal's skin. They tell hero what to do, how to act, save him because he saved their life and do it because they chose to do so. I do not see Buckbeak doing anything like that. I see him acting per his instinct _ **magical instinct** to be sure, but instinct nevertheless. JMO, Alla From frankd14612 at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 00:19:25 2007 From: frankd14612 at gmail.com (Frank D) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 00:19:25 -0000 Subject: JKR's Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176921 > Geoff: > JKR's Latin leaves a little to be desired on occasions. Whether that is > deliberate or not is open to question - perhaps some of the Latin used > for spells etc. has been deliberately changed. > >> So "herself's" Latin is decidedly suspect..... :-) > Frank D: I'm trying to clarify: I don't think it's stated anywhere that spells or curses must be in schoolbook Latin. It's obvious that so many of them are not (e.g., "Alohamora," "Avada Kedavra"). Of course, this inconsistency could be attributed to each spell originator's having used his/her own desired name or language for a particular spell. Have we been given any guidance by JKR as to preferences or rules for naming spells? And what about Snape's "Sectumsempra"? Snape is always so picky about adherence to rules but why did he choose a "non-standard" format for the name of his own invented curse? "Sectum" means to cut up or chop, but what does "sempra" mean? ("Semper" means "always," but what would Snape intend by "cut up always"?) And why combine the two Latin words into one? In the interests of enjoying the books, I think I will just accept the terms as they are and not try to parse them. From yvaine28 at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 00:32:56 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:32:56 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's Latin In-Reply-To: References: <46E457BB.4060600@fastmail.us> Message-ID: <5d7223330709091732s412d7cc4lcb05bb9ee2996e2a@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176922 > Geoff: > JKR's Latin leaves a little to be desired on occasions. Whether that is > deliberate or not is open to question - perhaps some of the Latin used > for spells etc. has been deliberately changed. > So "herself's" Latin is decidedly suspect..... :-) > --- Meann: I don't believe JKR ever claimed that the spells have to be in Latin. She did use some Latin-based words, but I believe most of the time, she is just using words that simultaneously sound familiar to readers, conjure up images in the readers' minds of what the spells are supposed to do, and yet have this sort of mysterious and arcane flavour. For example, "Wingardium Leviosa" may sound Latin-ish, but as you said, it isn't. However, it actually conjures up an image in my mind of objects levitating whenever that spell is used. So I do believe that she's going more for the effect of the words more than anything else. =) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 02:01:15 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 19:01:15 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709091901w7543d66dq5113db480bf9ec0c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176923 Lynda: I didn't really experience much in the way of changed expectations because I expected JKR to be the one writing the story. I did think that possibly she might include some things but did not expect her to. Things that were nicely unexpected were: Dudley's congeniality to Harry in DH, Snape's backstory, the glimpse we got into Luna's life away from Hogwarts (I'm thinking of the golden chain with the names of the students she hangs out with and the word friends here), the partial redemption of the Malfoys, how delightful Kreacher became with just a little better treatment from Harry (although the turnaround was so quick as to be somewhat unbelievable), RAB's story. Completely unexpected were the revelations about Dumbledore's past, Harry's toy broom (which explains why flying was so easy for him) and how far Hermione was willing to go to protect her parents. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 10 02:13:00 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:13:00 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176924 > > lizzyben: > > It depends, we don't know. Parkinson did. The point is not so much the > likelihood, but McGonegal's seeming willingness to hold Slytherins as > a group responsible for the actions of any one individual. She has > ceased to see them as individual human beings, as sees them instead as > a mass of "them", indistinguishable & dehumanized. Potioncat: McGonagall's statement about "duel to kill" was said to Slughorn and her point was "this is war, not DADA class." LV is about to enter Hogwarts, anyone fighting against her side will be treated as a full enemy. What other choice does she have? Actually, it might better have been said to the entire school. I don't get the idea that if one Slytherin attacks, she will kill all the House. It is later that Pansy calls out for them to give Harry to LV and the school stands and raises wands. At that point McGonagall quickly starts the evacuation. She didn't allow the students to point wands so much as she changed the tactic. (By starting the evacuation.) The general order to 'put down your wands' probably wasn't a good idea. Later we have Aberforth stating that they should have kept some Slytherins as hostages. McGonagall did not hold any as hostages or prisoners. She let them go. Now, I don't like the way JKR wrote this section of the book. In interviews she's said not all Slytherins are associated with DEs and that some members of the other houses are also sympathetic to DEs. But she's chosen to make Slytherins the bad guys. It appears within the context of JKR's story, there is reason for McGonagall to suspect Slytherins (Germans in WWII?) but she did offer them a choice to fight with her. I agree with Carol, I don't like the way McGonagall reacted to Harry's Cruciatus Curse. But I think she prepared for battle in the best way she could. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 04:31:32 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 04:31:32 -0000 Subject: Timeline for DH In-Reply-To: <3925323.1189185817348.JavaMail.root@mswamui-blood.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176925 Bart wrote: > This reminds me. Is there a decent timeline anywhere for DH? One thing that I have specifically been trying to figure out: Did Lupin and Tonks HAVE to get married, so to speak? Niru writes: Aha... I had the exact same doubt. LoL! So I pulled out a few calculators and here's what they say - (Teddy Lupin conceived) July 9 --> (Teddy Lupin born) April 1 (Teddy Lupin conceived) August 7 --> (Teddy Lupin born) April 30 The only solid fact we have is that Teddy was born in April 1998. We may infer from Tonks' glowing looks on Harry's birthday that she knew was pregnant. I'm guessing that Lupin and Tonks got married end June or early July and conceived Teddy pretty much straightaway! - Niru From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 06:14:53 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:14:53 -0000 Subject: Noneteen years (WAS Re: What Next for Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176926 Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > I think you are probably right. At the time of > Voldemort's death, Harry is 17. But what was the > month? These final events usually occur in June > near the end of the school year. Niru writes: I believe that JKR has detracted from her usual June endings and ended DH in May. It could be June but here's why I think it is still early May. There are only 24 hours - give or take a couple of hours - between the trio and Griphook setting off to break into Gringotts and the final defeat of Voldemort at Hogwarts. When Harry is standing outside Shell Cottage waiting for Hermione and Griphook, there is a line that goes something like 'since it was May there wasn't much wind'. (Sorry I can't quote exactly since I'm at work and don't have the book). So they've left Shell Cottage in May. Of course it might have been 31st May making the date of Voldemort's death 1st June. But, it doesn't look like there are weeks and weeks between Teddy Lupin's birth and the trio setting off for Gringotts. Teddy was born in April (one blustery April evening when Harry was helping Fleur cook dinner and he apologizes to her for inconveniencing her). And Harry tells Fleur that he, Ron, and Hermione will soon be off her hands. So I think that Teddy was born mid-April or the 3rd week of April and the final battle took place early-May or probably mid-May. JMHO. Niru From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 06:53:25 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:53:25 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176927 --- "Mike" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > Big fat bullies is what they are. Two against one > > is disgraceful. So is five against three (GOF stomp) > > or SEVEN against three (OOTP stomp). Draco is > > consistently out-numbered & out-powered in these > > little encounters, which means he ends up hexed, > > slugged, bloody, unconscious and the good guys just > > end up w/a sense of satisfaction at some well > > deserved payback. > > Mike: > Ya know, if Draco is going to insist on acting the > ass, you'd think he'd learn to bring more backup with > him. He continually taunts others until he finds the > right buttons to push. Then he's surprised that people > react to getting their buttons pushed. Not too bright > for a bully, is he? > bboyminn: I'm going to have to side with Mike. Lizzyben seems to be trying to view everything as morally neutral, but once again I emphasize that context is everything. These events don't happen in a vacuum. Draco is a constant provocateur. He is the instigator and the antagonist. Draco is going to push and shove and goad and annoy and irritate until he forces a response. And like all bullies, he's the one whose going to whine the loudest when he loses. THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. Draco is not some innocent waif here. Draco is the one provoking every situation. And like all bullies, he can only win when he is bullying the weak and the helpless (like Neville). But like all bullies, when he is face with people who are not going to take his crap, he simply can't hold his own. I simply can't place any blame on Harry and the gang for not taking any of Draco's bullying and thuggish behavior. It is crystal clear in the books who is causing the problem, and who is responding to it. The only reason bullies still exist on the playground, in the office, and on the world stage is because we allow them to exist. Because we collectively tolerate their existance. As soon as they are opposed with absolute resolve, only then can they be defeated. I have very little sympathy for Draco since Draco causes all his own problems. He makes an endless series of bad choice that provoke bad outcomes. If he wants better outcomes, then, like everyone in every life, he has to learn to make better choices. If you can't see why the bad guys are the bad guys, and why the good guy, with all their flaws, are indeed the good guys, then...then I can't think of anything polite to say in response to that. I can think of lots of things to say, but none of them are polite. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 07:15:26 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:15:26 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176928 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Carol" wrote: > > > you forget that Marietta not only > > doesn't know Harry (she's in a > > different House and a different year) > > Many LOYAL DA members were in different houses and > different years and many had parents who worked for > the ministry (including Marietta's best friend CHO). > And Marietta had been with Harry for about 6 months > in the DA, and must have heard wonderful stories about > what Harry did before his more controversial 5th year; > and yet you ask me to say that it is reasonable for > somebody who is not a moral imbecile to conclude > that Umbrage is a better person than Harry. I don't > think so! > bboyminn: On the subject in general, and to those defending Marietta, I ask, when and where did Marietta hear Harry conspiring against the Ministry? When in any DA meet or in the time between DA meeting do we ever hear Harry and the gang conspiring to overthrow the evil empire and instill Dumbledore as supreme leader over all? Those conversation never happened. Further the idea that Dumbledore wants to take over is somewhat private. It is Minster Fudge's belief which is supported by Umbridge, but when is this ever publically declared? Never, that's when. True Harry mentions it at, I believe, the first formal DA meeting. But the idea is generally scoffed at and thought of as ridiculous. From that point on it is never discussed again. In fact, Harry has just release his Quibbler interview and the Wizard World and the students are throwing their support behind Harry. The article convinces many, not all-but many, that Harry is telling the truth. In the DA classes, Harry concentrates on defensive spells that are standard and common; though certainly some are advanced. Still, many of them are likely to come up on the OWL tests. So, I reject all claims that they are engaged in any subversive activity, and fully and absolutely reject any notion that they were engaged in any form of criminal sedition. Marietta is there in the DA classes. She knows what is going on and what is being said, and that provides her with no evidence of wrong doing beyond breaking a few clearly corrupt and self-serving school rules. As to Umbridge, given that all the teacher and a majority of the students are against her, it seems clear that /they all/ know who the good guys and the bad guys are. A person would have to be blind and foolish not to see how corrupt and controlling Umbridge and the Ministry's actions are. One final note; Marietta actually gave away very little information. The bulk of what we hear is really Umbridge filling in the blanks with what she wants to be happening. Marietta said just enough to invoke the cursed contract and then wisely shut her mouth. From the point on, in my view, it is just Umbridge making it up as she goes. Umbridge has an agenda, and what I see is Umbridge making up 'facts' that serve her agenda. That said, I do have a small bit of sympathy for Marietta. I'm sure she was torn between what she was being told was right and what she felt was right. She's not the first person on earth to trust what she was told inspite of what her gut was telling her. It's actually, and sadly, quite common. Or so says I. Steve/bboyminn From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Mon Sep 10 08:13:09 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:13:09 +1000 (EST) Subject: Draco redeemed? Message-ID: <20070910181309.CTU31645@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176929 Hi all, After many readings of DH and going back to reading from Book 1 again, I have been thinking a lot about Draco and his character development. I think I have come to the conclusion that, while not in Snape's league in terms of redemption, he does develop his moral sense quite a bit throughout the series. I also have been thinking about what life must have been like for the young Draco Malfoy and it makes me all the more surprised that he made any progress at all towards the moral point of view. Judging from what his relationship with his father was like, he must have led a very confined childhood, with his father directing his every move, so that he would be sure to follow in the Malfoy tradition in every way, from being a death eater to probably even having an arranged marraige with another pureblood (specualtion of course, but seems to fit in with what Lucius would have wanted). I can't imagine that Lucius would be bouncing Draco on his knee, reading him stories, or palying catch (or anything else for that matter). Rather it would be more like scare tactics to get Draco to conform to what Lucius sees is what a Malfoy should be. There are quite a few hints to this, especially in the form of Lucius bullying Draco. In COS, he tells Draco to "Play Nicely", in GOF he pulls him up for boasting - -all this in front of not just others, but the "enemy" so to speak. So it is my conjecture that Draco really had no choice but to be a smirky, nasty little ferret. He had it drummed into him from birth at muggle-borns and blood traitors were dirt, that money could buy him everything, that his status as a Malfoy could get him anything he wanted. In short, the poor kid never had a chance. To my mind, the fact that he rose above all that and shows even a small amount of mercy to Harry and friends in DH, never worked a spell in the ROR, and tried to save his friend Goyle, etc, is all the more amazing given the brainwashing he had to go trhough as a kid. Comments in these thoughts would be gratefully accepted. Sharon From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Mon Sep 10 07:56:20 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:56:20 -0000 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176930 Potioncat wrote: > Learning that Snape was a Half- blood was a big surprise and I > expected some explanation of why a Half-blood would become a DE. JP: Did anyone else find it strangely curious that both Voldemort and Snape were both mudbloods? I found this highly curious. I talked with some folks about it and everytime someone eventually brought up Hitler and his hatred of Jews and praising of the blonde haired/blue-eyed Arian, which obvously he was not. An intentional parrellogram? Or maybe quite simply she is stating that desire to attain something which is impossible drives people's hatred of themselves to insanity. From raven_paul_07 at yahoo.com.ph Mon Sep 10 10:42:34 2007 From: raven_paul_07 at yahoo.com.ph (raven_paul_07) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 10:42:34 -0000 Subject: Imperio In-Reply-To: <646FB1BB-5704-4783-A4F3-B898D506D6FB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176931 > > > Laura: > > > By that reasoning, Hermione's modification of her parents > > > memories is also Unforgiveable. She does it with the best > > > of intentions, but she doesn't give them a choice > > Bruce Alan Wilson: > > How do we know that she gave them no choice in the matter? > > She may have sat them down and given them a complete breakdown > > of the situation and her proposed course of action > Laura: > But, as interested in knowing everything as Hermione is, it > seems odd to me that her parents would choose to NOT know > something. Hermione is in the house that is known for courage, > too. raven_paul_07: I agree. Hermione is bright. She has a lot of knowledge but not so much wisdom. What she showed is selfishness. She wants to go with Harry and Ron to find the other Horcruxes - she had a point on that one. But she chose to leave her parents not knowing where she would go. My professor says, "Parents would understand if you would explain it very well. You cannot blame them because they always worry about you..." Hermione is such a bright witch, I hoped that she would know that. She can always explain it to her parents in a proper manner but did not do it because of selfishness. She always thought that she can handle all things in her hand. From jnferr at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 11:40:49 2007 From: jnferr at gmail.com (Janette) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 06:40:49 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: <646FB1BB-5704-4783-A4F3-B898D506D6FB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: <8ee758b40709100440q39f18d8ei17a266a54f6b8583@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176932 > > raven_paul_07: > > I agree. Hermione is bright. She has a lot of knowledge but not > so much wisdom. What she showed is selfishness. She wants to go > with Harry and Ron to find the other Horcruxes - she had a point > on that one. But she chose to leave her parents not knowing where > she would go. My professor says, "Parents would understand if you > would explain it very well. You cannot blame them because they > always worry about you..." Hermione is such a bright witch, I > hoped that she would know that. She can always explain it to > her parents in a proper manner but did not do it because of > selfishness. She always thought that she can handle all things > in her hand. montims: we know nothing of Hermione's relationship with her parents - while we see them at Gringotts, and speaking with Arthur, seemingly as interested in the Wizard world as Arthur is in muggles, Hermione spends very few holidays with them, and it would appear that they are ok about that. She also cancelled a skiing trip with them at the last moment, with seemingly no repercussions. While we are postulating alternative scenarios, let me present a couple who are so happy together in their lives and their joint career that their daughter is kind of an imposition. I am not saying they mistreat her - she seems wellcared for, if a little anxious to please, and very driven to study (to attempt to impress her parents who will otherwise not notice her?) They always wanted to move to Australia - maybe they let her know - oh, in a very detached and non-accusatory way - that her arrival and existence had obstructed this longheld dream... Maybe Hermione is not the selfish one here... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 10 13:53:02 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:53:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176933 lizzyben: > I know a little bit about the psychology of mass violence, and while > reading this story, I could tick off each of the stages of genocide > in my head. (Separation, symbolization, dehumanization, > demonization...). Jen: That is part of the story - for Muggleborns. 'Mudlbloods'; the Muggle-born registration committee and the taking away of rights and wands; kids not being allowed in Hogwarts unless they register, etc. How is this same process happening at Hogwarts during the year for Slytherin students? There's no evidence of Slytherin students being forcibly segregated or separated out to experience specific punishments, having slurs assigned to their group, having rights or wands taken away. Taking the end scene and working backwards to say this is occurring doesn't work unless there's actual evidence that the steps of the process were taken. lizzyben: > When McGonegal threatens to kill the Slytherin students, & the > entire school aims their wands at the Slytherin table, Hogwarts > teeters dangerously on the brink of the last stage - extermination. Jen: First of all, McGonagall made it very clear to Slughorn that he and his students could evacuate if they chose to do so but now was the time to decide upon loyalties. Then the entire house shows up in the Great Hall! What's McGonagall supposed to think happened there except that Slytherin has decided they want to take part in securing the castle against Voldemort? They haven't evacuated, they arrive with the other students. You don't offer evacuation to victims you're on the brink of exterminating, btw. Then Pansy speaks out, not acting like a dehumanized, helpless victim in this scene to my eyes, and sides with the leader of the oppressive regime. That *is* a declaration of loyalty, fightin' words in a war. There's no way to know if she speaks for herself only, a couple of students, the entire house, etc. but she makes it improbable for her house to remain after a declaration of loyalty like that. lizzyben: > Imagine how McGonegal felt, watching all this, watching her students > being beat up & tortured, as the Head of Slytherin House oversees > it. Watching DD's murderer take over w/his DE friends. Wouldn't > she be filled w/rage at Snape? Wouldn't she start to hate Slytherin > House in general? She does try to kill Snape, uses an Unforgiveable > Curse, & then threatens the entire Slytherin House w/death. She's > lost it, pushed beyond the brink by the stress & anger she's > experienced. And she's lost the ability to distinguish Slytherin > students as individuals, but instead totally associates them w/the > Death Eaters, Snape, murder & evil. She's fallen perilously close > to approving of killing Slytherins in general as revenge on the > Death Eaters. Jen: I'm sure McGonagall has plenty of feelings about what occurred over the year; however, she's presented consistent with her characterization as in control of the situation and herself. The moment Harry tells McGonagall he's acting on Dumbledore's orders, the situation changes, as noted here: "You're acting on *Dumbledore's* orders?" she repeated with a look of dawning wonder. Then she drew herself up to her fullest height. "We shall secure the school against He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named while you search for this - object." When Snape appears on the scene shortly after, he is the enemy in her eyes and she's become the head of a resistance movement rather than simply an acting headmistress anymore. From her view, Snape is attempting to sniff out Harry and turn him over to Voldemort when he arrives (because there's no reason in her eyes for Snape to act any differently from the Carrows), and Snape is making what comes across as a veiled threat to take that very action - "Have you seen Harry Potter, Minerva? Because if you have, I must insist -" That was provocation enough for her to start a duel to defend Harry (she's taught Harry for six years; she's pretty clear Harry is no match for Snape. ) When Slughorn arrives, he is *not* the enemy, McGonagall doesn't take up her wand against him. He expresses hesitation about participating in the resistance, "I'm not at all sure whether this is wise, Minerva. He is bound to find a way in, you know, and anyone who has tried to delay him will be in most grievous peril - " McGonagall does what any resistance leader would do - leave if you don't want to fight but don't take steps to undermine us or you will become part of the enemy fighting against us. She then gives him the chance to make his own decision: "The time has come for Slytherin house to decide upon its loyalties..." Jen (All quotes from DH, chap. 30, pgs. 598-601, US ed.) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 10 14:24:07 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:24:07 -0000 Subject: JKR's Latin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176934 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Frank D" wrote: Geoff: > > JKR's Latin leaves a little to be desired on occasions. Whether > > that is deliberate or not is open to question - perhaps some of the > > Latin used for spells etc. has been deliberately changed. > > > >> So "herself's" Latin is decidedly suspect..... :-) Frank D: > I'm trying to clarify: I don't think it's stated anywhere that spells > or curses must be in schoolbook Latin. It's obvious that so many of > them are not (e.g., "Alohamora," "Avada Kedavra"). Of course, this > inconsistency could be attributed to each spell originator's having > used his/her own desired name or language for a particular spell. > Have we been given any guidance by JKR as to preferences or rules > for naming spells? Meann also wrote: > I don't believe JKR ever claimed that the spells have to be in Latin. > She did use some Latin-based words, but I believe most of the time, > she is just using words that simultaneously sound familiar to readers, > conjure up images in the readers' minds of what the spells are > supposed to do, and yet have this sort of mysterious and arcane > flavour. For example, "Wingardium Leviosa" may sound Latin-ish, > but as you said, it isn't. However, it actually conjures up an image > in my mind of objects levitating whenever that spell is used. Geoff: I visualise many spells developing among European wizards. In the centuries following the fall of the Roman Empire, Latin continued to be the lingua franca between nations partly because it was the language of the educated and also the influence of the Catholic church which was not challenged until the Protestant churches began to grow in the 15th/16th century and certainly the first English and German Bibles were printed. This would mean that well-educated people would speak good Latin which is why I find JKR's somewhat mixed up spells a trifle incongruous. We know that there are spells which do not use Latin ? `Avada Kedavra' as an example which uses Aramaic. Some of JKR's spells are definitely odd; `Alohamora' has been analysed as a mixture of Hawaiian and Latin!! We also have at least one example which uses ordinary English, namely `Stupefy' while `Scourgify' is close to modern English and `Obliviate' sounds like the offspring of oblivious and obliterate. I'm not sure that I would agree that some of these words sound familiar to readers. I recognise many word roots because I took Latin to exam level at school and not everyone has the opportunity to do that nowadays I must admit that `Wingardium Leviosa" did not conjure up any images until after I read its effect. I'm still of the opinion that JKR's Latin is bad; she may have studied it and forgotten much of it or possibly put the spells together with the help of a Latin dictionary. But it's an interesting topic to theorise on as a change to dealing with the moral maze or Marietta.. :-) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 10 16:10:36 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:10:36 -0000 Subject: Marietta yet again. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176935 "va32h" wrote: > A person's point of view is irrelevant > to the way they perceive other people > or their actions? Not entirely but pretty much. I'll tell you one thing, trying to take a person's point of view into account has turned criminal law into a laughing stock. It's hard enough to figure out what actually happened during a crime but in addition juries are asked to figure out what thoughts were dancing around in the defendant's head when he chopped his victim in half with a dull ax; no wonder we get ridiculous and inconsistent verdicts. When the law insists on perfect justice they end up with crappy justice, better to aim for pretty good justice. > And Marietta is now EVIL? Yes. > Evil on the scale of Voldemort, evil? No. > Give me a break. No. > how many times has Harry's POV > been at odds with the truth? 42, but it doesn't matter because even when Harry was incorrect about something he never did anything evil, at least not very evil as Marietta did. > But gosh, you know, you're right. > Marietta got off easy with acne I agree completely. > Oh please. Just. Please. Stop groveling, please. Eggplant From G3_Princess at MailCity.com Mon Sep 10 17:15:44 2007 From: G3_Princess at MailCity.com (rowena_grunnionffitch) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:15:44 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176936 > Rowena, the whole point about ghosts is that they are unwilling or unable to > repent; that is why they are ghosts--they cannot move beyond whatever evils they > did or whatever goods they did not do. > > Bruce Alan Wilson The impression I got from Nearly Headless Nick was ghosthood was something the departed chose, rather than 'getting on a train'. However it is clear that both the Baron and the Lady chose ghosthood due to unfinished business. From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Mon Sep 10 17:12:20 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (John Paul Smith) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:12:20 -0000 Subject: Draco redeemed? In-Reply-To: <20070910181309.CTU31645@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176937 Sharon Hayes wrote: > So it is my conjecture that Draco really had no choice but to be a smirky, nasty > little ferret. He had it drummed into him from birth at muggle-borns and blood > traitors were dirt, that money could buy him everything, that his status as a > Malfoy could get him anything he wanted. JP: Shanon I think you are more or less right on the money here. However I would expand it to not just Lucius, but his entire family, look at the scene in the tailor shop where Draco's mother obviously shares the same views. You could expand beyond that and look at pureblood society as well. This is not just one trynnical patriarch, but a system that has obviously been in place since the time of the founders of Hogwarts (Slytherin). The concept of pureblood and mudblood in this series is fascinating to me, maybe more so because I am a person of mixed cultural/racial heritage, which makes me a real life mudblood, lmao. Has anyone ever thought of the term "mudblood" and it's connection to racist history? Since it's inception, the KKK has used the term "mud people" to define all non-arians. It is really interesting how JKR weaves the use of reality (rascism, for lack of a better term, coming of age, class struggle, etc) within this purely fantastic setting. I think that is one of the reasons the books are so endearing; as fanciful as they are, deep down, they are really quite human. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 17:50:17 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:50:17 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176938 Jen wrote: The students have been under pressure all year from the Carrows which in my understanding greatly enhanced the split between the houses. I'm sure Snape did what he could to protect the students but his hands were tied by his secret allegiance, and violence and torture of students sounded like a regular affair the entire year. If it wasn't happening directly to students, they were observing what happened to others. > > It's too much to reprint here, but on pages 573-576 from The Lost Diadem chapter (US ed.), Neville talks about various events the Carrows were responsible for, including: Having students (plural) practice the Cruciatus curse on others who received detention (Neville points out a deep gash on his cheek at this point); the Carrows tortured 'mouthy' students but don't want to spill too much pure blood so they stop short of killing them; chained up a first year; caused students to think twice about trying to help other kids after torturing Michael Corner 'pretty badly' for attempting to release the chained-up first year; kidnapped kids to force relatives to behave; attempted to go for Gran when they couldn't stop Neville from fighting back..... > > It doesn't sound like Snape was able to stop the Carrows from doing much when it came to punishment except those times when he was able to step in to divert the punishment, like when he assigned Ginny et. al. to detention with Hagrid. > Carol responds: I agree that Snape could not stop the Carrows from torturing students, but that's not what I was arguing against. I'm not talking about punishment. I'm talking about what Amycus Carrow probably taught in his DADA classes. Yes, he taught the Unforgiveable Curses )(and Fiendfyre), but I don't think he taught them to the younger students (which would have been pointless since most of them would lack the will or the ability to cast an Unforgiveable Curse, particularly against a fellow human being as opposed to, say, a spider or a fly). Since the *only* students we know of who tortured other students in detention are Crabbe and Goyle, both seventh-years, there's no reason to assume that the Unforgiveable Curses were taught to students below sixth year, the year in which Crouch!Moody was supposed to introduce the Unforgiveable Curses (learning about them, not how to perform them) in GoF. It's also the year in which Snape taught his NEWT DADA students about them in HBP. Since we don't hear about students killing or Crucioing each other in the hallways, and students in fourth year (GoF) are told that they don't have the power to perform the curses (*and* you have to mean them--Harry doesn't perform a successful Crucio until what would have been his seventh year), I don't think we can safely assume that Carrow was teaching "each and every one of the students" (quoting lizzyben from memory) to perform Unforgiveable Curses. It's more reasonable to assume that he taught some nasty hexes to the fifth-years and under but reserved the Unforgiveable Curses for students old enough to perform them successfully. And even then, some of the students (e.g., Neville) probably refused to learn them or failed to perform them. (I can't see Neville performing the Cruciatus Curse on anyone or anything for any reason. It represents pure evil to him, IMO.) And note that even Draco, a DE as far as we know and the son of a DE, hates performing the Cruciatus Curse. I doubt that the Carrows had any recruits to help them torture fellow students other than Crabbe and Goyle. We don't hear of Draco joining in, for example. On the contrary, we see that he, the "bad boy" of all the previous books, hates casting it. Anyway, to repeat, I'm not talking about the Carrows torturing the students themselves. that's canon. I'm talking about the students supposedly learning to torture or kill each other, as lizzyben claims. If the younger students could perform a successful AK, I doubt that McGonagall would be so concerned to keep anyone under seventeen off the battlefield. Carol, again emphasizing that we know of only two students who performed the Cruciatus Curse *in school*, none is identified as performing the Imperius Curse, and no student kills another or tries to kill anyone until Crabbe attempts to AK Harry in the RoR From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 18:10:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:10:45 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176939 Carol earlier: > > At any rate, there's no indication that Neville, for example, has "learned and practiced Unforgiveable Curses." > > lizzyben: > > Only because Neville refused to do it! And he was then tortured himself as punishment for refusing. How many students are going to have Neville's courage to stand up to the Carrows? Students were REQUIRED to practice the Unforgiveable Curses against other students as part of their class. Carol responds: Required to practice the Unforgiveables on each other? Can you support that with canon, please? We only know of two students who used the Cruciatus Curse on others (in detentions, not in class). No instance of students Imperioing each other is mentioned. And if they used Avada Kedavra against each other, half the student population would be dead. You can't practice the Killing Curse on another person without committing murder. Luna says that she's never even Stunned a person outside the DA lessons before she Stuns Alecto Carrow (DH Am. ed. 589). I don't get the impression that she's been Crucioing or Imperioing anybody, and she's a sixth year. (Granted, she was kidnapped in December and missed most of the year.) Students under seventeen are kept out of the battle (unless they sneak in) because they can't defend themselves. If they could cast AK and kill the DEs, there'd be no need to protect them. I've already mentioned that students below at least fifth year canonically lack the power and ability to perform these spells. And Neville, of course, is a seventh-year, as are Crabbe and Goyle, the only students we know of who use or attempt to use one or more of the Unforgiveable Curses at Hogwarts. Carol, who thinks that Neville's reports would have focused on carnage in the corridors rather than the Carrrows' detentions if your view were correct From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Sep 10 18:23:27 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:23:27 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176940 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > Required to practice the Unforgiveables on each other? Can you > support that with canon, please? Mus thinks zhe can: "Amycus, the bloke, he teaches what used to be Defence Against the Dark Arts, except now it's just the Dark Arts. We're supposed to practice the Cruciatus Curse on people who've earned detentions - " [Neville, DH, UK pb: 462] This reads to me as if the DA classes have a practical element, which involves the students using Crucio. So I *think* this is canon for at least one UC being part of the curriculum, with a practical element, though I admit it says nothing about Imperio or AK. Mus From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 18:43:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:43:09 -0000 Subject: Timeline for DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176941 Niru wrote: > > Aha... I had the exact same doubt. LoL! So I pulled out a few calculators and here's what they say - > > (Teddy Lupin conceived) July 9 --> (Teddy Lupin born) April 1 > > (Teddy Lupin conceived) August 7 --> (Teddy Lupin born) April 30 > > The only solid fact we have is that Teddy was born in April 1998. > > We may infer from Tonks' glowing looks on Harry's birthday that she knew was pregnant. > > I'm guessing that Lupin and Tonks got married end June or early July and conceived Teddy pretty much straightaway! Carol responds: Actually, there's canon for the approximate marriage date as well. Voldemort tells Bellatrix during the DE meeting in chapter 1 that the "happy event" occurred "this week" (DH Am. ed. 9) and Snape says that Harry will be removed from 4 Privet Drive on "Saturday next" (3). "Saturday next," which can only be a few days away unless the phrase means "a week from this coming Saturday," turns out to be four days before July 31 (Harry's seventeenth birthday), which means that it's July 27. So if the meeting occurs on, say, Wednesday (it can't be Monday as the wedding has occurred the same week), that date would be July 24 and the wedding date would be around July 22. Obviously, we can't be that exact, but it seems that the Lupins were married in mid- to late July. I agree that Teddy was conceived right away, as indicated by Tonks' happy glow when Harry sees her on his birthday, and a mid- to late April birthdate fits with the Shell Cottage birth announcement. Carol, guessing that Teddy was conceived on the wedding night after Lupin had a little too much elf-made wine or butterbeer From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 19:39:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:39:18 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176942 Carol earlier: > > Required to practice the Unforgiveables on each other? Can you support that with canon, please? > > Mus thinks zhe can: > > "Amycus, the bloke, he teaches what used to be Defence Against the Dark Arts, except now it's just the Dark Arts. We're supposed to practice the Cruciatus Curse on people who've earned detentions - " [Neville, DH, UK pb: 462] > > This reads to me as if the DA classes have a practical element, which involves the students using Crucio. So I *think* this is canon for at least one UC being part of the curriculum, with a practical element, though I admit it says nothing about Imperio or AK. > > Mus > Carol responds: However, "supposed to practice" and actually practice are two different things, and Neville, a seventh-year, doesn't define "we." I still think it's only the sixth and seventh-years who would be taught these spells and only two who actually use one of the three spells. As for "people who've earned detentions," I can't see the entire student body showing up to Crucio one person. It makes no sense. Also, of course, there's more to the Dark Arts than the Unforgiveables, and even Amycus Carrow would realize that you have to start small with the younger students. (I also think he'd be even stupider than he appears if he had the students practice AK--students spilling wizarding blood in the hallways wouldn't make the Dark Lord happy, and besides, the students might turn around and cast that spell on him.) And once again, before I drop the subject, there's no evidence that anyone besides Crabbe and Goyle, two seventh-year Slytherins, takes advantage of this opportunity to torture fellow students. Neville does say, "Some people are into it, though," but the only two he names are C and G. The implication is that "some people" equals C and G. Not even Draco or Pansy Parkinson (or Theo Nott, that other son of a DE) is "into it" or Neville would have mentioned them. We don't hear about the Slytherins or anyone else rising up en masse to torture the students in detention. The Carrows do that just fine by themselves. On a side note, *Alecto* Carrow doesn't teach Unforgiveables or any spells at all, only so-called Muggle Studies, institutionalized prejudice. And we hear nothing about Imperius being practiced. Carol, who doubts that Crabbe ever practiced Fiendfyre before learning the hard way that it can't be put out and thinks he merely heard about the spell in class From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 10 19:45:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:45:32 -0000 Subject: Draco redeemed? In-Reply-To: <20070910181309.CTU31645@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176943 Sharon Hayes wrote: > it is my conjecture that Draco > really had no choice but to be > a smirky, nasty little ferret. > He had it drummed into him from birth Well yes, if Draco had grown up in a different environment he might not have been a smirky, nasty little ferret, and the same is true if he had different genes, but that does not make him one bit less a smirky, nasty little ferret. That said I must admit after reading book 7 I did have a little sympathy for the kid, not a lot but a little. Although his life was not as hard as Harry's he didn't exactly have it easy; and Draco did show true bravery and loyalty in trying to save Crabbe and Goyle even if that loyalty was entirely misplaced. Draco missed his chance for true redemption when Harry Ron and Hermione were brought in chains to the Malfoy manner and he identified them. Yes he seemed a little reluctant to do so but that didn't stop him from doing it; and he may really have been uncertain about Harry with his swollen face. Nevertheless he knew that whoever was behind that swollen face was going to suffer a horrible fate if they thought he was Undesirable Number One, so a good person would say "No, that is definitely not Harry Potter". Draco didn't do that. So at the end of the day we have two true redemptions with Snape and Regulus, and two half ass (or maybe quarter ass) redemptions with Dudley and Draco. I think that's plenty for one book. Eggplant From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Sep 10 20:09:02 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 20:09:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176944 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol responds: > However, "supposed to practice" and actually practice are two > different things, and Neville, a seventh-year, doesn't define "we." > I still think it's only the sixth and seventh-years who would be > taught these spells and only two who actually use one of the three > spells. As for "people who've earned detentions," I can't see the > entire student body showing up to Crucio one person. It makes no > sense. That's true, but Neville does say that DADA is now DA, and it's canon that DA is part of the curriculum from First Year. I could see ickle firsties starting out on small stuff - we've seen the UCs used on a spider in GoF, though this is of course not canon. > besides, the students might turn around and cast that spell > on him.) This is true, of course, even if only Crucio and Imperio are being taught only to NEWT-level students. It occurred to me while typing my previous post that ensuring that a resentful student body (which is, by assumption, at least the Gryffindors, Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws) knows powerful offensive magic is an extraordinarily dumb thing to do. > And once again, before I drop the subject, there's no evidence that > anyone besides Crabbe and Goyle, two seventh-year Slytherins, takes > advantage of this opportunity to torture fellow students. Neville > does say, "Some people are into it, though," but the only two he > names are C and G. The implication is that "some people" equals C > and G. Not even Draco or Pansy Parkinson (or Theo Nott, that other > son of a DE) is "into it" or Neville would have mentioned them. We > don't hear about the Slytherins or anyone else rising up en masse > to torture the students in detention. The Carrows do that just fine > by themselves. Perhaps it's a fatuous analogy, but what comes to mind for me is sports when I was in school. We all had to do it, and some of us were "into it", but a larger number weren't enthusiastic. Being made to do something isn't the same thing as the same thing as enjoying it. We know that refusing to practise it earned Neville a good seeing to. Mus From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 21:43:16 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:43:16 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709101443t5b2310e1q8e658bf216d5a2d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176945 Steve: These events don't happen in a vacuum. Draco is a constant provocateur. He is the instigator and the antagonist. Draco is going to push and shove and goad and annoy and irritate until he forces a response. And like all bullies, he's the one whose going to whine the loudest when he loses. Lynda: Absolutely. This is why I never liked Draco. He constantly bullied and taunted until DH and never let the opportunity go by to make someone else feel small. Real nice guy. I was glad to see some change in him in DH. It was more than I hoped for, really. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 22:31:50 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:31:50 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176946 > Mike: > Yep, lacking a definition from the author, what else do we have > besides "interpretation"? Obviously I believe I am correctly > interpreting canon. And you also see a difference between the Dark > Magic of Inferi, Horcruxes, the Unforgivables, etc. and the not as > dark Impedimenta, Stupefy, Petrificus Totalus, etc. So I guess I'm > not understanding why you still say you don't see any difference. > Unless you really do see Stupefy and AK as equally dark?! lizzyben: No, I don't think we disagree that some magic is darker (worse) than other - it's just the (Capital) Dark (lower-case) dark distinction that doesn't seem to be in canon; it's all just called "Dark". I'd classify it major or minor Dark Magic, but that's just an individual ways of describing the spectrum of "Dark Magic" from jinxes to the UCs. I agree w/you that there is a spectrum; it's not all the same. > Mike: > My impression was that the erstwhile DA members saw Draco and co. > walk past with wands out and sprang from their compartments hitting > those three from behind, catching Draco and co. unawares. lizzyben: Attacked from behind, yet! That might be right. Still, you'd think Draco & co. would've managed to get out one spell before being sluggified if they'd had wands ready. Maybe the DA members are simply better at this magic because of their training. > Mike: > Hexes and jinxes that Hermione looked up in library books and taught > Harry in GoF for the TWT. Sooo, how should this violate my moral > sensibilities? And of course Draco and co. were only planning on > hitting Harry with the tickling jinx,... yeah,... right! > > Since ALL jinxes, hexes, and curses designed to attack another being > have some degree of dark to them, all we have to insist on is that > everybody in the Potterverse plays nice, and we can eliminate all > darkness. Hmmm, sounds like such an interesting universe, why didn't > JKR write that one? lizzyben: It doesn't necesarrily *offend* me that Harry was teaching kids Dark Magic in the DA meetings - it's just surprising, because we tend to think of that as a purely defensive group. The DA really was learning the "Dark Arts." And they are becoming proficient in Dark Magic; again, probably necessary for fighting Death Eaters & etc., but then why do all of them seem to view Dark Magic w/such a stigma when it's what they themselves are practicing? It seems like it should either be seen as a tool used by all sides, or an evil thing that only the bad guys use. But the texts seems to want it both ways, where both sides use this magic, but the "good guys" pretend only the "other" side does. That's the dissonance, IMO. > > lizzyben: > > By fifth year, the DA are the real masters of dark magic in the > > school. > > Isn't it ironic that Hermione lifts spells directly from the Death > > Eaters? > > Mike: > Nope, concept, not the Dark Mark itself. I believe that was quite > clear. lizzyben: She's lifting concepts from the Death Eaters. The Dark Mark is a "charmed" tattoo that calls members - Hermione lifted the charm for the DA's coins instead. And, as Magpie points out, she says that she didn't want to mark DA members' skins, but she ended up doing exactly that to Marietta. JKR seems to throw in these ironies & parallels, & I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. > > lizzyben: > > > > And think about it. Five years, and the Slytherins never *once* > > successfully hex Harry. In contrast, Harry & co. jinx/hex Slytherins > > quite often. Draco doesn't tend to resort to violence in the way the > > Gryffindors do. He's all about the verbal taunts. > > Mike: > Why is it Harry's fault that Draco is a bad shot? And where were all > those successful jinxes/hexes of HRH against the Slytherins again? lizzyben: It's not Harry's fault Draco's a bad shot - it's JKR's. If we're supposed to accept Draco & co. as bullies, I think we should've seen a lot more evidence of Draco initiating hexing, punching, etc. Instead, it's the other way around. > > > lizzyben: > > When you refer to Draco "bullying" the Trio in earlier train rides, > > that's essentially what he's doing. And in book one, he actually > > tried to make friends w/Harry. > > Mike: > It's usually a good idea when attempting to make friends to bring > along a couple of body guards and to make derogatory comments toward > the one friend Harry has managed to make in his life. Evince ones > upper crust breeding and then warn Harry that if he doesn't watch his > step he could "go the same way of [his] parents". Hell of an effort > on Draco's part. lizzyben: I won't deny that Draco is an obnoxious jerk, but he wasn't *bullying* Harry. He didn't start out from a position of superiority, but really from a position of rejection. > Mike: > By book 4, huh? Could you give me one "semi-dark spell", let alone > many? I'm assuming you mean in books 1 thru 3 when you say "by book > 4", and I've acknowledge the train ride scene as the Only one. And > which "dark" hex did a Gryff use against an IS member? We don't know > who hexed Warrington or Pansy. lizzyben: Broken record here, but by book four, Harry is using hexes (semi- dark magic) against Draco & co. w/the boil curse & the train stomp. The Gryfs used a wide array of "dark" hexes in order to escape the IS members - Ginny used a bat-bogey hex, someone else gave Pansy antlers, etc. etc. I'm not saying the Gryfs are using a *huge* amount of dark magic against their school enemies, but there is IMO a steady progression of the heros using more & more hexes/dark magic against more & more people by the end of book 6. > > lizzyben: > > Sorry, can't counter w/the mead & necklace - Draco wasn't > > aiming at Gryfs or getting revenge, > > Mike: > Geez, the two times Draco actually gets Gryffs and it doesn't count. > What does this poor guy gotta do to get the credit due to him? > Besides, he was aiming for a Gryff alumnus, Dumbledore. lizzyben: He could just have easily have killed Pansy Parkinson, or Goyle. He wasn't trying to kill DD as part of a tit-for-tat, but because he'd been ordered to do so. > > > lizzyben: > > Big fat bullies is what they are. Two against one is disgraceful. So > > is five against three (GOF stomp) or SEVEN against three (OOTP > > stomp). Draco is consistently out-numbered & out-powered in these > > little encounters, which means he ends up hexed, slugged, bloody, > > unconscious and the good guys just end up w/a sense of satisfaction > > at some well-deserved payback. > > Mike: > Ya know, if Draco is going to insist on acting the ass, you'd think > he'd learn to bring more backup with him. He continually taunts > others until he finds the right buttons to push. Then he's surprised > that people react to getting their buttons pushed. Not too bright for > a bully, is he? lizzyben: He really isn't. If Draco's the bully, how come *he's* the one who ends up bloody, unconscious, hexed, etc. at the end of these encounters? Is that usually the way it works? Doesn't the bully usually get to beat up the victim, instead of the other way around? When I first read someone's suggestion that the Trio are aggressive towards Draco, I thought "no, *Draco's* the bully." But he isn't - he's obnoxious, he's a jerk, but he usually isn't the one that reacts violently or aggressively. I think of a bully as someone who abuses their power, the strong attacking the weak, the many attacking the one. And here, it's usually the Gryffindors that respond w/violence to a non-violent provocation - but we're told that Draco is a bully, even though he's not usually the one responding w/violence, and is usually the one who's outnumbered. There's that cognitive dissonance again. And yes, Draco is a horrible person who says horrible things, but I still don't think that justifies using force. Because then we're edging close to saying that we can use force or violence against someone who angers us - and that's not a good lesson for anyone, really. And when it comes to Zacharias Smith, he gets hexed w/o provoking any encounter at all, simply "because he exists." It starts feeling like the heros can use force/dark magic against other people simply because of who they are. > > lizzyben: > > Would *you* want to make the Gryffindors mad? LOL. > > Mike: > Umm, No. So why does Draco persist in this endeavor? lizzyben: Because it's a set up! Draco does seem to pop up at these moments when the Gryffindors are the most stressed or angry, for the same reason he popped up in the ROR (very out of character), for the same reason he popped up in front of Buckbeak. He comes because the author & the plot told him to. And why is he there? Usually, because it is time for some payback. And here's where I feel like we, as readers, are being manipulated into enjoying scapegoating & violence. In GOF, our hero Harry had just endured a horrible experience, and we are filled w/grief & anger towards Voldemort. And here comes Draco w/an obnoxious taunt - and when Harry & co. knock him unconscious w/a storm of hexes, we're satisfied, we cheer. It's almost a catharsis. I think the same dynamic is present in the POA & OOTP Draco-stomps, as well. In both situations, the author has ramped up the tension for the protagonists & the readers - until a convenient outlet pops up to release that anger. We get to release that anger upon a target, and in a way that allows us to feel self-righteous about it. I really like Magpie's post about "devilish fun" & "angelic outrage". W/Draco, it's a two-fer - we get the "devilish fun" of some payback, retribution & violence; but we also get the "angelic outrage" of feeling like this violent action is really a statement against hatred, bigotry, & bullies. And that's the dynamic that's really being set up here - if they weren't so bad (angelic outrage), it wouldn't be so much fun to beat them up (devilish fun). That goes not only for Draco, but the Durseleys, too. > Mike: > I agree with Magpie, I found Draco hilarious in the CoMC classes. Of > course part of it was watching him squirm when he was worried about > what new creature he's about to meet. lizzyben: Looking back at the Draco quotes in the HP Lexicon, he has a lot of funny lines: On the Blast-Ended Skrewt: 'Take this thing for a walk?' he repeated in disgust, staring into one of the boxes. 'And where exactly are we supposed to fix the leash? Around the sting, the blasting end or the sucker?' And yes, I laughed at the Hippograff attack, mostly because of Draco's over-reaction. "'I'm dying!' Malfoy yelled, as the class panicked. 'I'm dying, look at me! It's killed me!' > Mike: > Purposeful isn't always in self-defence. Hermione's hex of the DA > roster was purposeful, not self defence, imo. Or as you put it, > against someone who crossed them - purposeful. I think their use was > justified, especially since most of the hexes and jinxes I saw them > use were against DEs. lizzyben: But would you agree that the hexes against McLaggan, Smith, were justified? Or hexing Draco & co. for a verbal insult? That's the kind of thing that starts to look like bullying, to me. > > lizzyben: > > And that wouldn't fly in the real world at all. > > Mike: > Whoa. Hexes and jinxes don't exist in the RW, at least that I'm aware > of. Potterverse is a different world, violence seems to be every day > occurrences, and they have magic that reverses any damage quite > easily. If you are trying to convince me I should apply my RW > standards to the WW, I'll ask you, how? I don't have a wand, I can't > take a potion to regrow bones, and if I fell off a broom from 100 > feet in the air I'd be dead. How I got that broom to fly, I'm not > sure. lizzyben: Well, the big epiphany for me is that "dark magic" essentially *is* violence. It's a metaphor for violence in the same way that the Patronus is a metaphor for love & protection. And there's different levels of dark magic, in the same way that there are levels of violence in the real world. But it all still involves the use of force to hurt or injure another person. > > lizzyben: > > > > > > And there we enter the mindset of an abuser or a bully. It's almost > > scary how easy it is to be emotionally manipulated into supporting > > violence. > > Mike: > Not if you remember that you are discussing a book and the violence > is more like cartoon violence in their world. After both of the train > ride smack downs we saw Draco and co. reappear just fine in the > following books. That's the way of this world. I accept that as a > given. lizzyben: Well, the problem is that the rules seem to change drastically. Sometimes violence is presented as cartoonish, like w/the Durselys, but sometimes it's very serious, like at the Graveyard, and sometimes it's just hard to tell. Is throwing Montague in the cabinet "cartoon humor" or an attempted murder? You know? He didn't recover quickly, & apparantly would've died there. Things that would fly in one genre wouldn't work in another, & when there's this mish- mash of genres in HP, it's not clear what the rules are. The characterization of violence seems to veer schizophrenically based on who's suffering the violence, who's *doing* the violence, & how the narrator presents it (comically or seriously). Mike: > Harry already > knows that LV wants him dead, he just doesn't know why. Then Draco > makes light of Cedric's death. I not only understand Harry's > reaction, I find that reaction entirely *justified*. You may say that > I am being manipulated, I say that I am reacting logically to the > situation that is being presented. > > Mike lizzyben: You are reacting logically to the situation that is being presented. And JKR is doing the presenting. She has a gift for creating these awful characters who we just love to see getting their comeuppance in the form of hexes, Hippogriffs, centaurs, ton-tongue toffees, pig tails, etc. etc. I think the narrative sets us up to get the maximum emotional catharsis from these paybacks - but that also means that we're being manipulated for that reaction. We *are* being manipulated into enjoying violence. It's like going along w/the crowd & laughing as the nerd gets humiliated. I don't know, I just feel almost ashamed, somehow. Probably when I realized that we're seriously expected to think that Draco, or Smith, or Montague, etc. "deserved" violence as payback for being unpleasant & making the heros angry. After all, if they'd keep their mouths shut, they wouldn't keep getting hurt, would they? It's their own fault. That's the argument I've heard domestic abusers make in real life, so it makes me a little sick to realize that I've accepted that worldview here. lizzyben From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 10 23:53:14 2007 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:53:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176947 Niru writes: Great questions! :) > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was your > reaction the first time you read this? Yeah. I thought it was a childish prank too. > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum as > Auror training is? It is a flaw. Healing appears to be something that is only taught to those who choose to study it. Some people like Molly appear to pick up a number of healing charms along the way, but it doesn't seem to be part of the Hogwarts curriculum. > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know healing > charms? Is he right? Harry (and Ron) appear to automatically assume that Hermione will know something. Ususally they are right. But Hermione doesn't appear to know much about healing beyond the uses of Dittany (which admittedly are many). So in this case I think Harry is selling himself short. After all he does now how to fix broken/dislocated noses. Didn't he heal Demelza Robbins after Quidditch practice in HBP with the Episkey spell (from memory she is described as having a fat lip or something)? > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does this > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his feelings? > Has he made much progress? A fair bit since OotP. In those days, he would have been prone to hurl the mirror into the wall. This time he tries to control his reactions and concentrate on the job at hand. > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > reappear, but not all. Perhaps to show that there aren't too many items that Harry treasures. I was surprised he packed so few items and just discarded the majority of his possessions. > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to as "more > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute this > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he trained > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > welcome!) It is probably a combination of the two. He was predisposed to withholding information and then the incident with Ariana happened. They had to keep her in the house and were probably taught not to talk about it much. > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries such > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much of > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? I think Rita was not entirely honest in obtaining information from Bathilda. Bathilda was after all very old and nearly senile. I don't know what means Rita used, but I won't be surprised if some of them were fairly underhanded. And knowing Rita, she wouldn't have been interested in scholarly stuff. She was after scandal plain and simple. The things she really wanted out of Bathilda were the Ariana story and the Grindelwald story. > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their friendship? He didn't know much is my guess. Dumbledore certainly didn't put it out there and given what happened and his fears of how Ariana might have died, I don't think he'd have enlightened Doge. > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? The duel probably grew in legend a bit. But Rita is not right. > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > always planned for Harry to have this realization? I think she always planned for him to have this realizaion. Harry does not lack curiosity. In fact he has an abundance of it and has proved it at many points. I don't think he would gone around asking Dumbledore personal questions anyway. How many people will ask their teachers questions about their family and stuff? Especially if the first time he asked a question, he was lied to (rebuffed)? Harry is a private person and he is just respecting Dumbledore's privacy. > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore would > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? Hmm... the one question Harry asked was very, very personal. But I'm inclined to think that Dumbledore would have avoided answering personal questions. > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on the > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? No. Rita is lying. > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > the denouement. Any speculation? No. > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of this > do you think has a ring of truth? There's no ring of truth. Rita is alluding to pedophilia. That's why Harry feels so sick and angry when he reads that. > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report insinuates > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > certain truths? Well... they both have "certain points of view". Doge clearly idolizes Dumbledore and his tribute is glowing. Dumbledore is undoubtedly a great man but he's not the God-like figure Doge makes him out to be. Rita is taking certain truths like that fact that Ariana was ill and very closely watched and twists it around to create scandal. She is careful not to cook up a complete lie. She takes just one small grain of truth and then manufactures a story. > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > first time you read the book? I thought it was Albus Dumbledore from beyond the veil. Almost expected Sirius at some point! Niru From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Sep 11 00:20:53 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 00:20:53 -0000 Subject: FILK: Speaking in Parseltongue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176948 Speaking in Parseltongue (DH, Chap. 31) To the tune of Billy Joel's Only The Good Die Young http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFyh7-f0uKY THE SCENE: RON tells Hermione of his plan to finish off the fourth Horcrux RON: OK, Hermione, I've got a hunch To quickly help our side a bunch And to give to the Horcrux a murderous punch Let's think back when I was young .. Well I once went with Harry, I once went with Gild We heard Moaning Myrtle tell how she got killed And Harry proved himself to be bilingually skilled As sibilant songs he sung Speaking in Parseltongue That's what he said Speaking in Parseltongue Speaking in Parseltongue The basilisk filled him with a terrible dread He took G's sword, he struck it dead The poisoned fangs it had in its head >From the Chamber might still be sprung . So come on, Hermione, to the girls' room We'll descend into the basilisk's tomb It's fangs are still fatal, we've got to assume Let Hufflepuff's cup be stung Hermy, I'll say it in Parseltongue I tell it only in Parseltongue Speaking in Parseltongue I give a nice loud hiss For of Harry I make imitation We see it open wide Mm and we downward slide So, Hermione, stay close until we Get to our destination But it's decomposed We both had better keep hold of our nose I give you the fang so you can make it destruct You say I'm brilliant, I say merely "shucks" Let us now bid a farewell to another Horcrux The Dark Lord can eat my dung And I can say that in Parseltongue I would tell Voldy in Parseltongue Speaking in Parseltongue And we had better take some Time to ensure the elves' liberation Our voyage to the C of S Has now been proven such a great success Come on, come on, come on Hermione Tell Harry this We sought out a serpent, I gave it a hiss Then we embraced in a passionate kiss Let wedding bells soon be rung For I have spoken in Parseltongue Hiss it, Hermy For I am speaking Parseltongue . - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 01:41:23 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:41:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709101841t147f6f7bh29ec116cb3450326@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176949 Mike: Not if you remember that you are discussing a book and the violence is more like cartoon violence in their world. After both of the train ride smack downs we saw Draco and co. reappear just fine in the following books. That's the way of this world. I accept that as a given. Debbie: This is a very important point, because under real world rules, these attacks and counterattacks would be extremely dangerous. It is cartoon violence, but JKR uses exaggeration to great comic effect throughout the books, and it can be funny as long as we don't apply real-world values to these situations or treat the victims as real people. I think these debates tend to be between those who appreciate the slapstick comedy and those who find that the scenes recall painful real-world events Mike: The only things that are not cartoon violence are torturing and death, they are presented as real violence. And on the GoF train ride home Harry has not two weeks prior experienced torture and narrowly avoided death, from the guy that killed his parents. Those deaths he was also forcibly reminded of in the Priori Incantatum scene. Debbie: We do have that little inconvenience where the Hero gratuitously uses real violence without apology or explanation. Mike: Now here comes the son of one of LV's followers, someone who knows that LV is back, and he decides it's a good time to taunt Harry and co. with their precarious position in their world. Harry already knows that LV wants him dead, he just doesn't know why. Then Draco makes light of Cedric's death. I not only understand Harry's reaction, I find that reaction entirely *justified*. You may say that I am being manipulated, I say that I am reacting logically to the situation that is being presented. Debbie: I believe reacting logically to the entirety of the situation presented results in a conclusion that Harry's reaction was understandable. Whether it was justified depends on the moral code being applied, and we don't all apply the same code. I find Harry's actions understandable but could not justify them without accepting the WW's tacit warrior code. However, Fred and George aren't in the same circumstances as Harry at all. It was not their battle to fight; they simply appointed themselves as Harry's defenders. Debbie who wrote this response yesterday and forgot to post it [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 03:25:12 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 03:25:12 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176950 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > I think Rita was not entirely honest in obtaining information from > Bathilda. Bathilda was after all very old and nearly senile. I don't > know what means Rita used, but I won't be surprised if some of them > were fairly underhanded. Rita used Veritaserum on Bathilda. She admits it in her book: "On one subject, however, Bathilda is well worth the effort I put into procuring Veritaserum, for she, and she alone, knows the full story of the best-kept secret of Albus Dumbledore's life" (p.355). zanooda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 15:46:54 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:46:54 -0000 Subject: Old prediction about Harry's voluntary sacrifice defeating Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176951 So I was poking around recommended posts database and found this post by Leigh. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/64599 Granted, I have read the predictions about Harry defeating Voldemort by his death ( heck, I myself believed that quite strongly after HBP) BUT look at the date of this post - right after OOP came out. So early and so spot on. Bravo Leigh :) When we did not hear about Horcruxes at all yet. "Further, what if VM kills HP after HP has come to terms with death? Could it be that he "survives" death through this lack of fear or acceptance, somehow, and that this kind of "survival" is what kills VM (i.e. removes him from the land of the living)? ("for neither can live while the other survives") It seems the prophecy makes a clear distinction between the words "live" and "survive". I'm assuming that means they're not the same thing. I'm reminded of the spiritual concept that one must first come to terms with, or make peace with, death before one can truly learn to live." Alla. From katrinawitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 16:36:57 2007 From: katrinawitch at yahoo.com (katrinawitch) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:36:57 -0000 Subject: In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" In-Reply-To: <20070910181309.CTU31645@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176952 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: Hi all, After many readings of DH and going back to reading from Book 1 again, I have been thinking a lot about Draco and his character development. (Kat here...) One of the things that stuck with me in Deathly Hallows was that JKR referred to Draco as "Draco" throughout the book, not "Malfoy", as he'd been referred to in all previous books. Granted, it could have been just to differentiate him from his parents, who were featured more prominently in DH, but I think that Jo was maybe steering us towards viewing Draco in a different light, by using his first name. While he didn't redeem himself as a character in this book (yep, still a ferrett), he did show some sort of character development. And while the senior Malfoys were still elitist snobs, who in the past had held one's blood status above everything else, and definitely chose the wrong leader to latch onto and the wrong cause to champion, it did hit home to me that, throughout DH, their number one thought was for the well-being of their son. As a parent, it made me stop and think for a bit. If you had asked me in early July what my number one, rock-solid prediction would be (other than Harry living, of course, which I think was a no-brainer!), it would have been that at least one Malfoy, if not more, wouldn't make it until the end of the series. Color me pale- and-pointed if they all didn't live! ...Kat From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 19:12:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:12:21 -0000 Subject: In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176953 Kat wrote: > One of the things that stuck with me in Deathly Hallows was that JKR referred to Draco as "Draco" throughout the book, not "Malfoy", as he'd been referred to in all previous books. Granted, it could have been just to differentiate him from his parents, who were featured more prominently in DH, but I think that Jo was maybe steering us towards viewing Draco in a different light, by using his first name. Carol responds: I noticed that, too. Of course, he's also referred to as Draco in the HBP chapter title "Draco's Detour," but that could be primarily for the sake of alliteration. Also, we see the characters in "Spinner's End" referring to him by his first name, whereas Harry has never been on first-name terms with him (partly Draco's own fault, with his emphasis on surnames back in SS/PS): "And my name's Malfoy, Draco Malfoy" (SS Am. ed. 108). He also introduces Crabbe and Goyle by their last names only (108), and earlier he asks Harry "What's your surname, anyway?" (78), but is interrupted by Madam Malkin before receiving an answer. At any rate, Draco's interest in bloodlines (whether a fellow student has a known wizarding surname) puts them on a last-name basis from the beginning of their acquaintance. Oddly, even Draco's best friends (and it seems, surprisingly, that Draco does care about them) never achieve the intimacy of being addressed by their first names. OTOH, Snape, like Draco's parents, addresses him as Draco, at least outside of class. IMO, the narrator's use of "Malfoy" for Draco (and "Mr. Malfoy" for his father) reflects Harry's point of view, just as Lupin and Snape are always referred to by their last names even as kids. (I don't know about anyone else, but I find it jarring for a little boy to be referred to as "Snape" while two other little boys of the same age are referred to as "Sirius" and "James.") Harry's first and only use of "Severus" occurs in the middle name he gives his second son. The young Dumbledore is also "Dumbledore" in Harry's mind rather than "Albus" because, IMO, Harry met those characters as adults and retains their last names when he thinks of them. The narrator, though he's just a voice telling the story and not Harry himself, looks at the characters and interprets their words and actions primarily from Harry's point of view, so the characters are generally referred to by the names Harry uses to refer to them. (Interesting that Professor McGonagall, like Professor Snape, is referred to by last name only, a rare occurrence for a female character other than Tonks.) All of which makes the switch from "Malfoy" in the earlier books to "Draco" in DH extremely interesting, reflecting, perhaps, Harry's own belated realization that Draco, for all his flaws in personality and upbringing, is a human being like himself with fears and feelings. IMO, it's all part of the humanization of Draco that begins in HBP when we see him in tears in the bathroom (American term--shouldn't it be "toilet" as there are not tubs or showers in the room?) with Moaning Myrtle. On a sidenote, several posters have been complaining about the narrator's implied attitude toward Draco and Hagrid in PoA in the Buckbeak scene, but the narrator's attitude is *Harry's.* Of course, Harry sides with Hagrid and can't or won't admit that Hagrid is at least partly at fault, introducing dangerous beasts to a group of third-years in his--and their--first-ever COMC lesson instead of Knarls or Nifflers and not making sure that every student present understood the danger. (Draco is not listening when Hagrid talks about insulting a hippogriff possibly being the last thing you ever do. Yes, that's his own fault, but Hagrid is nevertheless the only adult present among twenty neophyte kids and six hippogriffs; it's his responsibility to make sure that nothing happens to the kids.) That the narrator seems to imply otherwise merely reflects Harry's pov. The reader is free to interpret the events, and distribute the responsibility, differently. It's extremely interesting to me that the narrator's depiction of Draco, emphasized by the use of his first name, is different from the depiction in earlier books, just as Draco himself is different. Yes, he's still not exactly brave, and he probably hasn't abandoned his views on pure-blood superiority (though he may come to question them off-page for all we know), but he's learned that he isn't a killer and he hates casting Crucios. It's most unlikely that he still worships "the Dark Lord" given what he's seen Voldemort do and been forced to do himself. In the case, of Snape, Harry has a dramatic epiphany reflected ever so subtly in the abandonment of such terms as "the man he hated" (DH Am. ed. 657) and "the magnitude of his crimes" (597). He becomes, with Harry and Tom Riddle, one of "the abandoned boys" and, simultaneously, a hero worthy of a public vindication, later honored in the naming of his second son. With Draco, the change is more gradual and less of a reversal. He first realizes, seeing Draco swimming in his own blood as the result of a spell that he himself foolishly cast without knowing its effects, that he doesn't want Draco dead. He's also aware, without processing the information, that Draco is desperately afraid for his own life and his family's lives. Then, on the tower, he sees Draco lower his wand a fraction and hears Dumbledore tell him that he's not a killer. Though still hating the "murderer" Snape and wanting revenge against him, he now feels a touch of pity along with his contempt for Draco. And then, in DH, he sees Draco forced to perform a Cruciatus Curse that he clearly doesn't want to cast. Later, Draco pretends not to recognize Harry. He has become, for Harry and the narrator, a boy in a terrible predicament, partly but not entirely of his own making. And though Harry never consciously thinks of him in that way, it's clear that his perception has changed. By "Malfoy Manor," even Lucius Malfoy has become "Lucius," perhaps simply to distinguish him from Draco (as Rabastan and Rodolphus are always called by their first names) but perhaps because he, too, has become humanized (though his faults are much greater than Draco's and, IMO, contrasted with his sons. (The women, Narcissa and Bellatrix, have been called by their first names since "Beyond the Veil" in OoP for Bellatrix and "Spinner's End" in HBP for Narcissa, reflecting the way they're addressed by Lucius Malfoy and Severus Snape rather than Harry's pov. Possibly, JKR is following British customs as well.) At any rate, the use of first names for male characters seems to mark a degree of intimacy or friendship in most cases (interesting that Lupin still sometimes speaks of Snape as "Severus" even after he thinks that he murdered Dumbledore and even though they were never more than colleagues and allies, not friends). Ron and Harry note with surprised that Karkaroff and Snape are on first-name terms in GoF. Dumbledore's use of "Severus" in speaking to Snape is not surprising since he addresses most people by their first names, but it's interesting that he uses that name to speak of him in third person in the final chapters of HBP and again in "King's Cross" in DH. Harry notes Mcgonagall's switch from "Harry" to "Potter" to indicate disapproval in HBP as well. Given all of these examples of the significance of first names for male characters, and probably others that slip my mind at the moment, it can't be coincidental or insignificant that the Harrycentric third-person limited narrator suddenly starts referring to Draco Malfoy as Draco just as Draco, like Harry, turns seventeen. You'd think that the eleven- through sixteen-year-old boy would be "Draco," and the seventeen-year-old "man" would be "Malfoy," but that's not what happens. IMO, the use of Draco's first name by the narrator reflects Harry's way of thinking about him--not as a friend, but no longer as an enemy. Slytherins, even Draco, who tried to kill Dumbledore and nearly killed Ron and Katie in the process, are human, too. By the end of DH, Harry is even willing to risk his life to save Draco, who, in turn, saves Goyle or makes sure that he's saved. Does all this constitute redemption of the sort that Snape receives, forgiven by Harry, publicly vindicated, and almost certainly, finding peace and mercy in the afterlife? It's hard to say since Draco doesn't die or openly express remorse and merely ends up reunited with his parents in a kind of limbo, separate from the other students and the participants in the battle. I think it's more like a second chance of the sort that Dumbledore extended to Snape. Even Lucius, it seems, belatedly gets that second chance, escaping punishment for his crimes because he didn't fight for Voldemort in the battle of Hogwarts. Like Narcissa, he loves his son, and, in the end, their son is all that matters. Carol, who thinks that Draco has served his time in Purgatory and will become, if not a good man, at least not an evil one From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 19:30:13 2007 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:30:13 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH2, In Memoriam In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176954 > > 1. Harry believes the teacup in the hall is a prank. What was > your > > reaction the first time you read this? Well, Petunia the neat-freak certainly wouldn't leave teacups lying around... I thought Dobby had tried to serve Harry tea or something... > > 2. Harry ruminates on Hogwarts' inattention to teaching healing > > charms. Is this a flaw in the curriculum? Do you suspect that it > > might be taught at NEWT level? Is this a post-Hogwarts curriculum > as > > Auror training is? Well, I'd think that some spells they do learn - under charms&DADA I think, and I suppose Herbology and Potions are useful too. First Aid is not exactly included in ordinary curriculum in most schools, either. > > 3. On a related note, why does Harry think Hermione will know > healing > > charms? Is he right? Because Hermione reads a lot - and knows loads of spells - She got O in most of her OWLs, didn't she? And if she didn't, she'd soon find out. > > 4. When Harry discovers the mirror shard, it brings back the old > > memories and feelings, but he suppresses them quickly. How does > this > > demonstrate the progress has Harry made in controlling his > feelings? > > Has he made much progress? At least he's not smashing it anymore. He experiences the sad memories from a time past, but chooses not to dwell on them. Much like Dumbledore adviced him to do, times back. > > 5. Apart from the books, JKR is quite specific about what Harry > > packs. Why do you think she wanted to name each item? Several > > reappear, but not all. Packing his things is one thing - the things he does not, however, the books in particular - mean he's not going to go back to Hogwarts. Moreover, backing when you're moving - it's a matter of choice, too. > > 6. Already as a child, Dumbledore seems to be inclined to withhold > > information, as we find in Doge's tribute. He is referred to > as "more > > reserved" when Doge returns from his travels. Do we attribute > this > > to personality or to "family secrets?" In other words, is he > trained > > to be secretive or would he have been anyway? (All speculation > > welcome!) Albus was secretive as a child - Ariana was not. Perhaps, seeing how revealing something can lead to suffering, Albus took the lesson of not to reveal much of anything. Aberforth, OTOH, may have viewed it differently - and he was the one who comforted Ariana. > > 7. We see Dumbledore writing as a Hogwarts student to luminaries > such > > as Flamel, Bathilda Bagshot and Waffling. We know Bathilda has a > > role later in Rita Skeeter's expose; any speculation on how much > of > > early Dumbledore's correspondence she shared? Enough for Rita and her QQQ to get a story... and I don't think that Rita would mention the name unless she was her source. Maybe Bathilda as a history book writer was pleased to talk about old things? > > > 8. Doge just happens to be gone when Dumbledore and Grindelwald > > become friends. How much did/didn't Doge know about their > friendship? Not much if Grindelwald was secretive, too. > > 9. Doge mentions the Grindelwald/Dumbledore duel, but clearly is > > reporting from second-hand (at best) sources. Are we looking at a > > duel that grew in legend? Is Rita Skeeter right? Probably it did, but Rita right? No way. > > 10. Following his perusal of Doge's tribute, Harry realizes he was > > very bad at asking questions. Is this a JKR sop to readers' > > frustration with his lack of curiosity, or do you think she had > > always planned for Harry to have this realization? Always, I think. It's not like she'd change the books based on what fans want, is it? Besides, it's not that Harry lacks curiosity or he'd not have found Mirror of Erised. > > 11. Harry suspects that Dumbledore didn't answer frankly the one > > personal question he asked. What's the likelihood Dumbledore > would > > have answered any of Harry's personal questions frankly? > Dumbledore- He might have just refused to answer, could he not? I think he told the truth but not the whole truth. I think he might have seen himself holding socks, but also Ariana. The socks being a christmas gift from her to Albus - or from Albus to her. (I do wonder about Albus reading knitting patterns...) > > 12. Rita Skeeter clearly lies in her interview, calling her > > relationship with Harry Potter "close." Did this mislead you on > the > > first read, or did you suspect some of what she found was true? No. Rita's known to lie. > > 13. The uses of dragon's blood is mentioned more than once in this > > chapter and has been known since book 1, yet it never figures into > > the denouement. Any speculation? Rowling's told us one is 'oven cleaner', another, apparently, what Slughorn did to stage a robbery. I'd also suspect some sort of shield-magic coming from dragon's blood. Resistance to fire, perhaps. > > > 14. Rita refers to Dumbledore's relationship with Harry > > as "unhealthy." While she is mining for sensation, how much of > this > > do you think has a ring of truth? No truth what so ever. > > 15. Doge's tribute is glowing, and Rita Skeeter's report > insinuates > > sensational scandal. Which one is more honest? Do both withhold > > certain truths? We know how Rita writes, grain of truth twisted into harmful story - whereas Doge idolizes Dumbledore. I'd trust Aberforth's view most, because he's simply a brother, not scandal seeker nor a fan. > > 16. What was your reaction to the flash of blue in the mirror the > > first time you read the book? That it was Albus looking from beyond. (Sirius had the mirror in there...) Finwitch From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Sep 11 19:34:28 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:34:28 -0000 Subject: In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176955 > Carol responds: > I noticed that, too. Of course, he's also referred to as Draco in the > HBP chapter title "Draco's Detour," but that could be primarily for > the sake of alliteration. Also, we see the characters in "Spinner's > End" referring to him by his first name, whereas Harry has never been > on first-name terms with him (partly Draco's own fault, with his > emphasis on surnames back in SS/PS): "And my name's Malfoy, Draco > Malfoy" (SS Am. ed. 108). He also introduces Crabbe and Goyle by their > last names only (108), and earlier he asks Harry "What's your surname, > anyway?" (78), but is interrupted by Madam Malkin before receiving an > answer. At any rate, Draco's interest in bloodlines (whether a fellow > student has a known wizarding surname) puts them on a last-name basis > from the beginning of their acquaintance. Oddly, even Draco's best > friends (and it seems, surprisingly, that Draco does care about them) > never achieve the intimacy of being addressed by their first names. > OTOH, Snape, like Draco's parents, addresses him as Draco, at least > outside of class. Magpie: Or it's a cultural thing. I always liked the idea that it sort of connected to Draco sounding upper class in an old fashioned way--in old boarding school books I believe it's normal for boys to all refer to each other by their last names. If there's more than one with the same last name they sometimes get Latin markers: Weasley Primus, Weasley Tertius etc. Harry calls Draco Malfoy due to dislike, but it's possible Crabbe and Goyle are just usually called that either because it's some sort of style thing to do it (as in the boarding school books) or maybe because it's thought to fit them. Tonks, for instance, is also called by her last name, but it is more meant as just a name. On the Harry-filter question with Buckbeak, I admit for me one of the biggest disappointments of DH was the weak challenging of his previous povs. I know that I can see scenes like the Buckbeak one any way I like, and certainly with Hagrid at least Harry himself acknowledges the difference between what he wants to see with the Hagrid situation and what he does see. But Harry's changes of heart were unfortunately duds for me personally, like going from white to off-white. Or white to green, but he wasn't married to white anyway. It now occurs to me that it almost makes me feel like the times where I feel like JKR just can't bear to let him lose. -m From iam.kemper at gmail.com Tue Sep 11 19:35:03 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:35:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40709111235o8c41873xca4abe131b369835@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176956 > Carol responds: > > (I don't know > about anyone else, but I find it jarring for a little boy to be > referred to as "Snape" while two other little boys of the same age are > referred to as "Sirius" and "James.") Kemper now: You're right of course. But I think it's appropriate to his character that he's referred by his surname. It only seems to be Cissy, Lily and Albus who refer to Snape with his first name. They are also the only ones who show any sort of empathy or intimacy (not sexual) to him. Everyone else he keeps at arm and wand's length. Slow day for the list. Kemper From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 11 20:21:17 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:21:17 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176957 Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell to find JKR waiting for you. She has a huge rather battered box in her arms which she drops just inside the door. "This is for you," she says and leaves before you can gather your senses. You open the box to discover page after page of neatly written notes and entire sections of typed manuscript. You quickly realize that what you have is a collection of written, but rejected moments from DH. (And, OK, maybe from the other 6 books too.) According to your personality, you begin to systematically sort and catalog the items in the hope of finding a particular scene, or you frantically toss pages aside as you search for that one moment you'd dearly love to read. What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking for? Potioncat, who suddenly realizes a nice thick layer of HP profits would be nice. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 20:33:19 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:33:19 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176958 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell to find JKR > waiting for you. She has a huge rather battered box in her arms which > she drops just inside the door. "This is for you," she says and > leaves before you can gather your senses. > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was > described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking > for? > > > Potioncat, who suddenly realizes a nice thick layer of HP profits > would be nice. > Alla: HAHAHAH. Oh dear god, I was literally sad to snip anything from this post. You have a gift for starting threads that are light hearted, but sooo much fun. So, what would I like to read about that I did not? Absolutely and most positively - Prank. I am quite happy with most resolutions I got in DH, but I was dying to read the step by step recollection of that night. I mean, do not get me wrong, I will read **everything** in that box, but prank will be the first on my list. I mean, characters childhoods, adults I mean, Sirius and Remus and Snape too, anything, anything. Prank page is the one I would grab first, for sure. I **still** find that night to be sooo very fascinating. Alla. From neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com Tue Sep 11 20:27:25 2007 From: neil.zoe.collishaw at ntlworld.com (zoe0coll) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 20:27:25 -0000 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176959 JP: > Did anyone else find it strangely curious that both Voldemort and Snape > were both mudbloods? I found this highly curious. I talked with some > folks about it and everytime someone eventually brought up Hitler and > his hatred of Jews and praising of the blonde haired/blue-eyed Arian, > which obvously he was not. An intentional parrellogram? Or maybe > quite simply she is stating that desire to attain something which is > impossible drives people's hatred of themselves to insanity. > De Lurke... Actually Snape and Voldemort were half-blood not mudbloods, cannon describes mudbloods as those who are muggle born - i.e. both parents are muggles, e.g Hermione and Lily, whereas Snape and Voldemort were both half and half. Although both Snape and Voldemort's obsession with pure blood is ridiculous considering that neither of them had it! Zoe C Back to lurking From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 21:37:54 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:37:54 -0000 Subject: In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" In-Reply-To: <700201d40709111235o8c41873xca4abe131b369835@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176960 Carol earlier: > > > > (I don't know about anyone else, but I find it jarring for a little boy to be referred to as "Snape" while two other little boys of the same age are referred to as "Sirius" and "James.") > Kemper responded: > You're right of course. But I think it's appropriate to his character that he's referred by his surname. It only seems to be Cissy, Lily and Albus who refer to Snape with his first name. They are also the only ones who show any sort of empathy or intimacy (not sexual) to him. Everyone else he keeps at arm and wand's length. Carol again: I'm not so sure. Harry consistently refers to Remus Lupin as "Lupin" and so does the narrator. I think it's because Harry knew both of them first as teachers, whereas James (who died before Harry knew him) is his father and Sirius (who starts out as "Black" when he's thought to be a bad guy) becomes "Sirius" as early as the Shrieking Shack scene. (Hermione starts off tentatively with "Mr. Black" and then changes to "Sirius," perhaps because she's trying to be friendly or compassionate, and he remains "Sirius" from that point on. For me, the use of "Sirius" for Black (by the narrator as well as HRH) suggests that he never really grew up. He sees Harry as the reincarnation of James and wants to relive his old adventures. For Harry, he's partly a father figure and partly a big brother. Lupin, his fellow Marauder, never becomes "Remus" to Harry (as he does to Tonks), IMO because he's first and foremost an authority figure. As for Snape, Harry has trouble even calling him "Professor Snape." The idea of calling him "Severus," or even thinking of the child or teenage Snape as "Severus," simply doesn't occur to him. We see it first in SWM in OoP and again in "The Prince's Tale" in DH. As I said, it's jarring to me, but I think it reflects his identity in Harry's mind as simply "Snape." (And, of course, even as he's getting these glimpses of the child Severus as someone not that different from himself who was his mother's best friend, he still thinks that he murdered Dumbledore, an impression not fully erased until much later in the Pensieve excursion--though I think the earlier memories pave the way for the revelation that the "murder" was Dumbledore's idea and fulfilled his wishes, not Snape's.) It isn't just Dumbledore and Narcissa who call Snape "Severus," though. I'm sure that Lucius does, too, as do Igor Karkaroff and Slughorn. Dumbledore, of course, is a special case since the use of first names isn't reciprocal. Snape would not more call DD "Albus" than he'd call Voldemort "Tom." Slughorn may use Snape's first name because he recalls him affectionately as a former student, but since they're colleagues and Snape, though much younger is the Slytherin HoH (Slughorn's former position), it could also be a mark of equality. (BTW, I noted that Snape calls McGonagall "Minerva" in DH, perhaps to emphasize that he's headmaster despite being not much more than half her age, but I'm not sure that's what's happening.) But the most interesting case to me is Lupin. In PoA, he addresses Snape as "Severus" while Snape addresses him as "Lupin," perhaps, as you suggest, keeping him at arm's length but also, IMO, because he suspects him of helping Sirius Black into the castle. In OoP, Lupin refers to Snape as "Snape" with reference both to his skill as a "superb Occlumens" and, rather oddly, to the incident when James and Sirius bully Severus (perhaps because Black is with him at the time?). But in HBP, Lupin reverts to calling Snape "Severus" when he tells Harry that he neither likes nor dislikes him and that he must be grateful for his perfectly made wolfsbane potion. He becomes Snape again after he "murders" Dumbledore (and we see Lupin at his most vengeful and accusing). Meanwhile, Slughorn is still calling him "Severus." Lupin calls him "Snape" again with reference to Sectumsempra and George's ear, but when he shows up at 12 GP he asks HRH if they've seen anything of "Severus." It could simply be that JKR can't make up her mind, or it could be that Lupin really does have mixed feelings about Snape, who is his own age and whom he, as prefect, should not have allowed his friends to publicly humiliate. I like to think that, under other circumstances (no meeting on the train between Severus and James, no Voldemort, no werewolf bite) they might have been friends, but, of course, that's just wishful thinking. Whatever Lupin's motive for sometimes addressing Snape as "Severus" or referring to him in the third person by his first name, it can't be *Snape's* standoffishness that's motivating him to do so (though certainly, that's one of Snape's motives in not reciprocating the attempt at intimacy, which he perhaps perceives as a liberty on Lupin's part). Another interesting use of first names occurs in CoS with "Rubeus" and "Tom." It seems to me that sixteen-year-old prefect Riddle is using Hagrid's first name to establish his own superior position, but thirteen-year-old Hagrid misinterprets it as a friendly gesture and reciprocates by calling him "Tom." Carol, who thinks that the use of first names as a mark of intimacy among male characters is important but is not sure quite how or why From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 11 22:26:39 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:26:39 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176961 Potioncat wrote: > Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell to find JKR waiting for you. She has a huge rather battered box in her arms which she drops just inside the door. > > You open the box to discover page after page of neatly written notes and entire sections of typed manuscript. You quickly realize that what you have is a collection of written, but rejected moments from DH. (And, OK, maybe from the other 6 books too.) > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking for? Carol responds: You want us to choose *one* scene? Not the whole history of Severus Snape (or whoever our favorite character may be)? Okay, assuming that she knows "what really happened," as Tolkien would say, and assuming that it would be in the box (which it wouldn't), I'd really, really like to know what Snape saw when he got to King's Cross, or whatever equivalent destination he arrived at the moment he died, when he had the choice to come back as a ghost and (evidently) chose to "go on." Did Lily meet him there? And what happened afterwards? But, of course, JKR probably doesn't know, either. Failing that, I'd settle for anything that filled the gaps in Snape's history, for example, the details on those three childhood memories in OoP or the other two memories in the Pensieve if we didn't see them in "The Prince's Tale." One thing that I'm sure would be in the box isn't directly related to Snape but I'd love to read it anyway: the rejected chapter in which Draco talks to Theo Nott at Malfoy Manor. I hope she publishes her notes on him. I think it's a shame we saw so little of him in HBP and none at all in DH. Carol, who always has trouble choosing just one thing and hopes that Potioncat doesn't mind her fudging a little on the question From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Sep 11 22:48:07 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:48:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] In DH he was "Draco", not "Malfoy": - Was "Draco redeemed?" Message-ID: <20070912084807.CTV89261@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176962 Kat said: While he didn't redeem himself as a character in this book (yep, still a ferrett) Sharon: I was quite dissapointed that Draco didn't redeem himself more than he did in DH. The seeds were there and JKR did develop his character somehwat. As I said earlier I do think he advanced in leaps and bounds considering his character in PS and also considering what he was up against -- his family, Voldemort, the death eaters. But I think JKR could have focused more the redemptions of both Draco and Snape, as to me these are the two most interesting characters in the book. Of course the trio of HHR are developed quite well and are also interesting characters, but Draco was definiltey one JKR could have had more fun with. As she wrote him, he was a bit too predictable. Speaking of character development, I was also dissapointed in Ginny. She really ended up just being a cheer leader type -- more concered about boys and dating than anything else. Quite a shallow kind of person that I am surprised that someone like Harry would be interested in. But then, he is a teenager, and who can account for16 year old boys hormones?! I thought Luna was a MUCH better match for Harry. Just my two cents worth, Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 11 23:18:44 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 23:18:44 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176963 > lizzyben: > > Yes. That moment is the moment when Hogwarts almost descends into mob > violence & massacre. And no one, including the author, seems to > realize it. I honestly think we are supposed to cheer there. Pippin: ::forehead slap:: That's the moment when Hogwarts nearly crumbles from within, just as the Hat predicted it might. It's the moment when Hogwarts, almost, but doesn't quite, die to thunderous applause. And you think JKR doesn't know??? Remember how she had Harry learn to resist the Imperius curse? She put it on him, then challenged him to fight it. Sure she's setting us up to cheer, she's telling us to jump on the desk, you might say, but, IMO, she *wants* us to think for ourselves. The epilogue frankly demands it. Think for yourself, and you start seeing of course there's no difference between anti-Slytherin bias and scapegoating and anti- Muggle bias and scapegoating. How could there be? Is there one kind of psychology for hating Slytherins on sight and another kind for hating Muggles? Did we ever meet any Muggles that we liked? Weren't the Dursleys bad and the others purely clueless? The Grangers seemed all right at first, but then they wouldn't let Hermione fix her teeth. The Muggle prime minister was made to be such a figure of fun that JKR didn't dare read that chapter out loud after the 7/7 attacks. And look what Hermione did to hide her parents..did she not violate wizarding law, proving that Muggleborns are untrustworthy just as Salazar Slytherin feared? So does that prove Rowling wants us to hate Muggles and think Muggleborns can't be trusted? I don't think so. It's all about thinking for yourself, IMO. Harry doesn't deploy McGonagall's rules of engagement against Draco. He prefers Dumbledore's. Not that facing fiendfyre together was going to make Draco and Harry friends. They'd grown too old for that, and they'd both learned that uniting people around fear of a common enemy is Voldemort's job. But that means the efforts we did see Harry and Draco making towards overcoming their respective biases were honest ones, IMO. Of course, Harry never got over it completely -- just because you'd never use an ethnic slur doesn't mean that your prejudices don't run as deeply as another person's. You don't have to think what happened to Montague was funny, even if Harry never gets around to thinking that himself. You might notice that while we didn't actually see young Snape inventing nastier magic over time, the Twins definitely did. You might even see that the manner of Snape's death, which like Dumbledore's involves both blood and poison, could have been chosen for its poetry... If you prick us, do we not bleed?...if you poison us do we not die? Pippin From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Sep 11 23:30:00 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:30:00 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in the Box? Message-ID: <20070912093000.CTV95967@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 176964 Potioncat: What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking for? Sharon: Anything do do with Snape or Draco I would devour! I want to know what Snape was thinking more, though of course she probably didn't write anything about that so it probably wouldn't be in the box anyway. I want to know how Draco thinks through HBP, how he feels about working for the Dark Lord, and most of all, whether he actually had the Dark mark. Personally I do not think he did have the dark mark, I think that JKR was just throwing out a false clue when she says he is showing something that scared Borgin at the beginning of HBP. The fact that Harry thinks it's the dark mark only reflects how Harry would think, and he is often wrong in his deductions, so he is no doubt wrong about the dark mark. he does notice that Draco pulls his arm away when being fitted for robes at madame malkins, and again assumes it's the dark mark, but it could have just been that mmme malkin pricked him with a pin, or soemthing just as innocuous. All this of course reflects my deep seated wish for Draco to be redeemed! But I also think that Draco was way too young to be given the dark mark, as he himself remarks to Pansy and Blaise on the train in HBP referring to the job he has to do for Voldemort: "Maybe he doesn't care if I'm qualified. Maybe the job he wants me to do is something you don't have be qualified for." (p.145 AUS version) Seems to me he wouldn't say that if he had the dark mark, he'd simply say he WAS qualified. Sharon, who thinks Draco should have gone over when Dumbledore asked him to. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue Sep 11 23:36:21 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:36:21 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E72675.5060402@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176965 Pippin wrote: > That's the moment when Hogwarts nearly crumbles from within, > just as the Hat predicted it might. It's the moment when Hogwarts, > almost, but doesn't quite, die to thunderous applause. And > you think JKR doesn't know??? Yeah, that's what I think. Yours is a very nice sentiment, and it's very tempting to believe that I didn't invest all that time, money and emotions in shallow and mean series, but after some reflection - it does not work. > > It's all about thinking for yourself, IMO. So, how come that the very readers who tried to look beyond the obvious and expected something more from Slytherin than being convenient scarecrows, are disappointed most bitterly by this book? And people who wanted "Dirty Harry" are quite happy? I can't get over the fact that JKR confirmed Marietta's scars and thinks it was a fitting punishment. I don't understand how she can reconcile that with insisting that she has written a Christian book on power of love. Gee, was that C.S. Lewis ever a wimp. He should have had Edmund eaten by the lion, that would have demonstrated the power of love all right. (Aside - I'm not bitter because the book is not Christian enough for me, or not Old Testament enough or anything else. I'm bitter because the book is hypocritical.) > > If you prick us, do we not bleed?...if you poison us do we not die? The funny thing is - it is possible to read into "Merchant of Venice" some sympathy towards Shylock, witness the latest film version. But unfortunately JKR is not Shakespeare, not remotely. Irene From madammilliemarsh at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 12 00:18:45 2007 From: madammilliemarsh at yahoo.com.au (Alison) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 00:18:45 -0000 Subject: Timeline for DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176966 Carol wrote : > Actually, there's canon for the approximate marriage date as well. > Voldemort tells Bellatrix during the DE meeting in chapter 1 that > the "happy event" occurred "this week" (DH Am. ed. 9) and Snape > says that Harry will be removed from 4 Privet Drive on "Saturday > next" (3). "Saturday next," which can only be a few days away > unless the phrase means "a week from this coming Saturday," turns > out to be four days before July 31 (Harry's seventeenth birthday), > which means that it's July 27. Alison : "A week from this coming Saturday," is what I would interpret it to mean. If it were the coming Saturday, it seems more likely that it would be expressed as exactly that or perhaps "this Saturday". So I would take the meeting to have occurred between 1-2 weeks prior to 27 July. Carol also wrote : >So if the meeting occurs on, say, Wednesday (it can't be > Monday as the wedding has occurred the same week), that date would > be July 24 and the wedding date would be around July 22. Obviously, > we can't be that exact, but it seems that the Lupins were married > in mid- to late July. Alison responds : You know, I never thought about interpreting the "this week" that way, I had thought simply that it occurred in the last seven days. But I agree your interpretation makes much more sense. So I would also agree that the meeting most likely took place on either Wednesday or Thursday. (If it were a Friday, then I would expect Snape to refer to the date Harry is moved as tomorrow week). So I would bring your dates forward to be one week earlier, putting the wedding on 15 or 16 July. But I agree there is probably still some margin for error up to a week either way, depending on exactly how those two phrases are interpreted. Alison (madammilliemarsh) From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 12 01:21:05 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:21:05 -0400 Subject: JKR's Latin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176967 JKR did take an Honors degree in Classics & French, so she would have at least a nodding familiarity with Latin. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 12 02:07:11 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:07:11 -0400 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the T Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176968 Lizzyben: "Imagine how McGonegal felt, watching all this, watching her students being beat up & tortured, as the Head of Slytherin House oversees it. Watching DD's murderer take over w/his DE friends. Wouldn't she be filled w/rage at Snape? Wouldn't she start to hate Slytherin House in general?" I think that anyone this side of St. Francis of Assisi or Mother Theresa of Calcutta would feel that way. Minerva McG., for all her good qualities, is no saint. 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 lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 02:15:34 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:15:34 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176969 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" wrote: > > lizzyben: > > I know a little bit about the psychology of mass violence, and while > > reading this story, I could tick off each of the stages of genocide > > in my head. (Separation, symbolization, dehumanization, > > demonization...). > > Jen: That is part of the story - for Muggleborns. 'Mudlbloods'; the > Muggle-born registration committee and the taking away of rights and > wands; kids not being allowed in Hogwarts unless they register, etc. > How is this same process happening at Hogwarts during the year for > Slytherin students? There's no evidence of Slytherin students being > forcibly segregated or separated out to experience specific > punishments, having slurs assigned to their group, having rights or > wands taken away. Taking the end scene and working backwards to say > this is occurring doesn't work unless there's actual evidence that > the steps of the process were taken. lizzyben: Well, the weirdness is that it works both ways. Yes, on the surface it is about the dehumanization of Muggle-borns, but the subtext is about dehumanization of Slytherins (and contrasting glorification of Gryffindor). Probably one of the best classes I ever had was on "Mass Violence, Genocide, & Humanitarian Law". In that class, we had to read a ton of eyewitness accounts from people who lived in these types of madness, in order to understand the underlying patterns & dynamics that these societies share. And I'm sorry, I'm not expressing it well, but I *did* see it occurring from HBP at least, and just waited to see if that message would be subverted or endorsed. It was endorsed, in the end. I don't know how it happened, I'm almost positive it wasn't intentional on JKR's part - but it happened. Maybe that's just human nature, that even when trying to express how awful bigotry is, we can't help but blame "the other" for it. In this novel, the surface waves seem to be moving one direction, but there are powerful undercurrents & riptides pulling you in the exact opposite direction. Surface/subtext - Choices are what matter/predestination removes choices - World not divided between good & DE/world totally divided between good & evil, us & them - Good is something you do/ good is something you *are*, & good people can do bad things if they want to. - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that matters - bad Slytherin blood will out, pure Gryffindor blood will save. - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is totally justified. - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it. - Women are equals/ women are worthless - The power of love/ the power of force - might makes right, magic makes might. - Equality of all/ superiority of the Elect - Loyalty to family/ loyalty to Harry above all - Redemption & forgiveness/ Condemnation & vengeance - Diversity is a good thing / Homogeneousness is a good thing - reject other cultures & POV's. - Compassion is important/ compassion is useless - Love gives you strength/ love makes you weak, obsessive, pathetic - It's OK to have flaws/ it's NOT OK to have flaws, stuff it out of sight. - Embrace differences/ reject "the other" as evil - House Unity is good/ House Segregation is good - Slavery is bad/ slavery is the natural order - Labels & stereotypes are bad/ labels & stereotypes are accurate & valuable - Other races, cultures & classes deserve rights/ other races, cultures, & classes deserve subjugation by the upper-class Elect. - Muggle-born dehumanization is bad/ Slytherin dehumanization is good. - Expelling muggle-born students is bad/ Expelling Slytherin students is good. It's truly one of the most schizophrenic works I've ever read. > lizzyben: > > When McGonegal threatens to kill the Slytherin students, & the > > entire school aims their wands at the Slytherin table, Hogwarts > > teeters dangerously on the brink of the last stage - extermination. > > Jen: First of all, McGonagall made it very clear to Slughorn that he > and his students could evacuate if they chose to do so but now was > the time to decide upon loyalties. Then the entire house shows up in > the Great Hall! What's McGonagall supposed to think happened there > except that Slytherin has decided they want to take part in securing > the castle against Voldemort? They haven't evacuated, they arrive > with the other students. You don't offer evacuation to victims > you're on the brink of exterminating, btw. lizzyben: Oh yeah you do. That was a threat, pure & simple. You've bought into the Slytherins=Death Eaters mindset. Why wouldn't she think that Slytherin students wanted to fight too? Or that they hadn't evacuated yet, or didn't know what to do, or were looking for safety? Why assume that the Slytherin students' presence in their own school, their own home, was part of some insidious plan to let in Voldemort? Because Slytherins have *already* been rejected from Hogwarts society & are now totally classed as an "Other" that doesn't belong there, anymore. And by the way, McGonegal actually *ordered* the Slytherins to go to the Great Hall - she tells Slughorn: "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the Great Hall in twenty minutes." Yet when the Slytherin students do as they're told, that's a sign of their disloyalty, evilness & Death Eater loyalties? What would make you come to that (IMO irrational) conclusion? Because they have been so successfully demonized, that we're able to just ignore contradictory evidence & twist the reality to fit the preconceived "evil" vision. So, the Slytherin children showing up in the Great Hall for safety, as told, can suddenly be interpreted as a sign that they're planning to turn on us all & let in Voldemort!! That's the kind of rampant paranoia & delusion that exists in a genocidal society, and we as readers actually start to THINK that way. Because we, like Harry, have been successfully indoctrinated in the propaganda & dehumanization of the designated other. Jen: > Then Pansy speaks out, not acting like a dehumanized, helpless victim > in this scene to my eyes, and sides with the leader of the oppressive > regime. That *is* a declaration of loyalty, fightin' words in a > war. There's no way to know if she speaks for herself only, a couple > of students, the entire house, etc. but she makes it improbable for > her house to remain after a declaration of loyalty like that. lizzyben: Them's fightin' words - and they just about fought. The Slytherins had already been dehumanized, demonized, segregated & polarized - it would have been *easy* to go to the last stage w/extermination. In real life, mass violence almost takes on a life of its own as the society descends through the stages, & that's what seemed to be happening in the Great Hall. Pansy has a personal grudge against Harry, who almost killed her boyfriend; she's not going to try to protect him. But it's the other houses' reactions that are chilling - they don't raise wands against Pansy (which would be bad enough) but against the entire table of Slytherin students, ickle firsties and all. They're *all* responsible, they're *all* guilty by association, because Slytherins have become a dehumanized, anonymous group of "them". McGonegal clearly holds the entire House responsible. She allows the rest of the school to raise their wands against the Slytherin students, and doesn't tell them to put their wands away. Instead, she then *orders* the Slytherins to leave - basically at gun-point. The Slytherin students obediently evacuate. And, just like we could blame the Slytherins for showing up in the Great Hall on McGonegal's orders, we can also blame them for leaving Hogwarts on McGonegal's orders. Those evil Slytherins! How dare they listen to McGonegal?! That just *proves* they were disloyal to McGonegal; unlike the Gryfindors who wouldn't follow her directions. And hey, there's that cognitive dissonance again! The ritual exiling of the scapegoat has occurred. > Jen: I'm sure McGonagall has plenty of feelings about what occurred > over the year; however, she's presented consistent with her > characterization as in control of the situation and herself. The > moment Harry tells McGonagall he's acting on Dumbledore's orders, the > situation changes, as noted here: "You're acting on *Dumbledore's* > orders?" she repeated with a look of dawning wonder. Then she drew > herself up to her fullest height. "We shall secure the school > against He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named while you search for this - object." lizzyben: McGonegal wasn't acting like herself when she called the torture Cruciatus Curse "gallant" or used Imperio Curse for no reason. This was a different McGonegal than the strict, fair, *just* person we saw in HBP. She wasn't in control of herself anymore, IMHO. I don't really blame her. (And was that the best plan, really? She's risking the lives of all her students so that Harry can go search for some unknown item - simply because her Leader said so. Not a whole lot of critical thinking there). Jen: > When Snape appears on the scene shortly after, he is the enemy in her > eyes and she's become the head of a resistance movement rather than > simply an acting headmistress anymore. lizzyben: And she goes for the kill. Good thing Snape is quick w/a Protego spell. I will always love Snape for this scene - the good guys are casting Unforgiveable Curses left & right, but Snape refuses to cast a spell that will hurt someone. Jen: > When Slughorn arrives, he is *not* the enemy, McGonagall doesn't take > up her wand against him. lizzyben: YET. I do believe McGonagall considers him the enemy as well, which explains why she treats him differently from all the other Heads of House. All the House Heads arrive together - she orders Flitwick & Sprout to begin battle preparations; she informs Slughorn that they will kill any Slytherin who opposes or sabotages the battle. Because Slytherins *are* the enemy, in her mind. Jen: He expresses hesitation about participating > in the resistance, "I'm not at all sure whether this is wise, > Minerva. He is bound to find a way in, you know, and anyone who has > tried to delay him will be in most grievous peril - " McGonagall > does what any resistance leader would do - leave if you don't want to > fight but don't take steps to undermine us or you will become part of > the enemy fighting against us. lizzyben: Yes, you're either with us or you're against us. But the more I think about it, Harry & McGonegal's plan was incredibly stupid - Harry really had no idea where the Horcrux was, or how to find it. It could've taken him *years*. But McGonegal doesn't ask questions, and if you do ask questions, it proves that you are a traitor who is attempting to undermine the cause. Slughorn is now classified as a Voldemort supporter for expressing doubt about the plan, just like Smith was classed as a traitor for expressing doubt. Never question a Gryffindor! Jen: She then gives him the chance to make > his own decision: "The time has come for Slytherin house to decide > upon its loyalties..." > > Jen > > (All quotes from DH, chap. 30, pgs. 598-601, US ed.) lizzyben: Is McGonagall really a "resistance leader" in that moment? Not at Hogwarts - she's in charge, she's the boss, the general, the new President. (NEVILLE was a resistance leader against the prior Headmaster). Actually, what has occurred is a coup - the prior leader has flown the coup after an assassination attempt, & the opposing party has taken over power. It's a revolution, baby. She's the accepted leader of Hogwarts, and is defending the "country" from an imminent invasion & attack at its borders. Who is she "resisting" in Hogwarts? Nobody, now. Unless Slytherins are the enemy. Unless we've already begun to consider the Slytherin students as snakes in the grass, traitors in the midst, the enemy within our own borders. As McGonegal clearly does. As the reader does. We, as readers, have been led down the primrose path. We've been indoctrinated into thinking that that specific group of people truly are evil, barely human, totally lacking in worth. The labels & stereotypes are right, and we *are* superior. We *are* good, and they are Dark & bad. We are pure of heart, they are tainted. We've laughed & cheered when the White Hats inflict some payback on the Black Hats - because it's funny when violence happens to "the other" (train stomps, toffees, bullying). Just a laugh, really, and they deserved it for being so horrible & bad. Now, our hero has just tortured a Black Hat for an insult. Our trusted authority figure has just approved the use of torture against Black Hats, calling it gallant. This authority figure has threatened to kill student Black Hats, has used Unforgiveable Curses, and has tried to kill the Black Hat Headmaster. Her actions are presented as justified & admirable. And now we're in the Great Hall - the good White Hats are seated at three tables of the room, and the evil Black Hats are seated at the one other table. And one of the traitorous evil group just tried to betray our hero to the Death Eaters. And the White Hats draw out their wands and aim them at the evil, Dark, traitorous, subhuman table of scum in righteous anger. It is time for some payback. Here's my question - if the White Hats had shot curses at the table of Black Hats at that moment, would we have cheered? If they had killed Pansy, would we have cheered? If they'd taken out the whole evil House, would we have approved? MAYBE! It is the logical continuation of the dehumanization & violence that has occurred throughout the series, and throughout the novel. It would also later be considered an atrocity and a massacre. But in that moment, the good guys might've done it, and good readers might've cheered. It's downright *easy* to justify violence against the other, most especially when you are positive of your own goodness & of their own irredeemable evil. And that's where the novel reaches it's final paradox - a novel that supposedly endorses labeling "good" & "evil" people actually shows the danger of exactly that philosophy. A world in which bigotry & evil are only something the "other" group does shows how easy it is for all of us to fall into the same faults. lizzyben From bawilson at citynet.net Wed Sep 12 01:59:28 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 21:59:28 -0400 Subject: Readers' expectations and change of them along the ride. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176970 JP, Voldemort and Snape weren't mudbloods, which isn't a very nice word even if it were accurate; they were half-bloods. Each has a witch for a mother and a Muggle for a father. A "m*dbl**d" is a witch/wizard both of whose parents are Muggles. Muggleborn is the polite word. I've seen some fans use the term 'magesport', which I like, but JKR never uses it. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From kat7555 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 02:35:33 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 02:35:33 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176971 > Potioncat: > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it > was described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be > looking for? I wanted to see Sirius' Sorting Hat scene to find out if he said Not Slytherin as Harry did. I wanted to see more with James and Lily. We still don't know what prompted her to change her mind about him. I would like to know what they did to defy Voldemort. Hermione has the least amount of backstory among the Trio. How does she get along with her parents? Did she have Muggle friends that she left behind? Kathy Kulesza From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 12 03:35:09 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:35:09 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176972 > > Jen: First of all, McGonagall made it very clear to Slughorn that > > he and his students could evacuate if they chose to do so but now > > was the time to decide upon loyalties. Then the entire house > > shows up in the Great Hall! What's McGonagall supposed to > > think happened there except that Slytherin has decided they want > > to take part in securing the castle against Voldemort? They > > haven't evacuated, they arrive with the other students. You > > don't offer evacuation to victims you're on the brink of > > exterminating, btw. > lizzyben: > Oh yeah you do. That was a threat, pure & simple. You've bought into > the Slytherins=Death Eaters mindset. Why wouldn't she think that > Slytherin students wanted to fight too? Or that they hadn't > evacuated yet, or didn't know what to do, or were looking for > safety? Why assume that the Slytherin students' presence in their > own school, their own home, was part of some insidious plan to let > in Voldemort? Because Slytherins have *already* been rejected from > Hogwarts society & are now totally classed as an "Other" that > doesn't belong there, anymore. > Yet when the Slytherin students do as they're told, that's a sign > of their disloyalty, evilness & Death Eater loyalties? What would > make you come to that (IMO irrational) conclusion? Jen: I left my previous comment for you to re-read. If my rhetorical question was confusing, I'll say it plainly: When Slytherin house appeared in the Great Hall, McGonagall assumed they were there because they wanted to take part in securing the castle against Voldemort. Seems the argument about my 'mindset' and irrational conclusion is based on a misreading. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 12 03:56:39 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 03:56:39 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176973 Kathy Kulesza: > I wanted to see Sirius' Sorting Hat scene to find out if he said Not > Slytherin as Harry did. I wanted to see more with James and Lily. We > still don't know what prompted her to change her mind about him. I > would like to know what they did to defy Voldemort. Hermione has the > least amount of backstory among the Trio. How does she get along > with her parents? Did she have Muggle friends that she left behind? Jen: Yes, more about Lily and James. There was nothing about how Lily came to see James as someone other than an arrogant toerag, very little information about James that painted him in a new light. I suppose the letter and memory of Godric's Hollow were meant to portray James differently. It was so little to go on though. What did they do for work? How did they defy LV 3 times? What were their tasks as Order members? All of that information would have rounded out the characters much more. Most of the information about them comes from others, including Godric's Hollow as seen through Voldemort's memory - that part disappointed me a little. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 12 04:05:06 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:05:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: <46E72675.5060402@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176974 Irene: > So, how come that the very readers who tried to look beyond the obvious > and expected something more from Slytherin than being convenient > scarecrows, are disappointed most bitterly by this book? > And people who wanted "Dirty Harry" are quite happy? Pippin: I'm not disappointed:) Not at all. And I don't think anybody could accuse me of not looking beyond the obvious :) But instant analyses of a complex book tend to be superficial. I think if you're only seeing convenient scarecrows, you might not be looking hard enough. It's like that optical illusion with the old lady and the young girl. Usually one image is easier to see than the other. That doesn't mean they aren't both supposed to be there. http://www.torinfo.com/illusion/illus-1.html Irene: > I can't get over the fact that JKR confirmed Marietta's scars and thinks > it was a fitting punishment. Pippin: She didn't *say* it was a fitting punishment. She said she loathed traitors. I'm sure she loathes people who abuse their servants also, but does that mean Sirius deserved what he got? Lots of people in the Potterverse have scars who don't deserve them. All Marietta's show is that Hermione gets carried away sometimes. As I keep saying, there's a reason Harry didn't want her to have the power of the Elder Wand. I'm not sure what you mean by expecting more from Slytherin. I think Marietta's tale shows us that a child caught between warring guardians who each claimed to be acting for the child's own good would be in a no-win situation. It's different than Molly vs the DA. The DA wasn't trying to convince anyone that supporting the Order was evil, and Molly didn't think that a DADA study group would be immoral, just dangerous. To put the Slytherins in such a position, would be like a horrible divorce with each parent claiming the other one is evil and expecting the kid to take sides. Which parent was "good" would hardly matter-- no child could survive such a situation without appalling damage, no matter what she chose. Dumbledore didn't expect Draco to make such a choice, and IMO, we shouldn't either. I'm perfectly okay with the Slytherin families being left to struggle towards redemption on their own, just like the rest of us. I hope to goodness the world has seen enough of people kidnapping children from cultures they think are degenerate to raise them among so-called decent people. I've got no problems with the treatment of Draco. I never expected him to partner with the Trio. All the fanfic I've read where that happened always ended up displacing one of the Trio characters, and I couldn't see how that would work in canon. I've got no problems with Snape either, aside from losing my crush object. Taken *and* dead -- he might as well be James. But you can't say JKR didn't warn us. Snape didn't turn out to be a wonderfully noble person. But he was true to his own beliefs, fought for them, and was hardly Dumbledore's puppet. We're told in OOP that the headmaster portraits are sworn to obey the current Headmaster. If so, then Snape's ignorance was his choice, to protect the plan -- if he had persisted, as Dumbledore did when Phineas defied him, couldn't Snape could have forced Dumbledore's portrait to tell him whatever he wanted to know? Pippin From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 04:28:12 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:28:12 -0000 Subject: Dark Magic and Retribution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176975 > lizzyben: > > - it's just the (Capital) Dark (lower-case) dark distinction > that doesn't seem to be in canon; it's all just called "Dark". > > I agree w/you that there is a spectrum; it's not all the same. Mike: You say po.tay.to, I say po.tah.to. Since it's "not all the same" I choose to use capital or lower case to distinguish, that's all. ;) > lizzyben: > > Attacked from behind, yet! That might be right. Still, you'd think > Draco & co. would've managed to get out one spell before being > sluggified if they'd had wands ready. Maybe the DA members are > simply better at this magic because of their training. Mike: Six against three and the DA kids had the drop on them. Draco and co. probably got hit with spells before they even turned around. > lizzyben: > > It doesn't necesarrily *offend* me that Harry was teaching kids > Dark Magic in the DA meetings - it's just surprising, because we > tend to think of that as a purely defensive group. The DA really > was learning the "Dark Arts." Mike: Just above you've conceded that there is a spectrum. And the DA are learning and practicing at the lower end of that spectrum. I asked you in my previous post if you could come up with another "purely defensive" dueling spell besides Protego. I can't. So, do you 'spose the DA should've just learned Protego and then disbanded? Oh, wait, I just remembered Expelliarmus. OK that's two, quite a repertoire, isn't it? You've focused on the DA attacking Draco and the other Slyths. Well, where would those kids have been in the MoM battle if they didn't use those "Dark Arts" spells? Where would HRH be in all of DH? How about all the Hogwartians in the big battle? And let's not forget Luna stunning Alecto in the Ravenclaw Common room. I'm afraid you basically eliminate ones ability to fight if you are going to call every spell used to attack another human a "Dark" spell and at the same time condemn anybody that uses "Dark" spells. > lizzyben: > > but then why do all of them seem to view Dark Magic w/such a stigma > when it's what they themselves are practicing? Mike: Because they, like you, distinguish between the truly Dark spells and those that are only somewhat dark. They see the spectrum more clearly than we do, and they know what is over the line. How does "dueling dark" strike you as a category? That would be spells everyone uses when fighting another human, when dueling. > lizzyben: > > She's lifting concepts from the Death Eaters. The Dark Mark is > a "charmed" tattoo that calls members - Hermione lifted the charm > for the DA's coins instead. Mike: Well, she used a Protean Charm. Which charm do you suppose Voldemort uses to burn in the Dark Mark? As to concept, she admits she thought about Dark Mark summoning, but it looks more like text messaging to me. ;) > > Mike: > > And where were all those successful jinxes/hexes > > of HRH against the Slytherins again? > > lizzyben: > > If we're supposed to accept Draco & co. as bullies, I think we > should've seen a lot more evidence of Draco initiating hexing, > punching, etc. Instead, it's the other way around. Mike: And where were all those successful jinxes/hexes of HRH against the Slytherins again? > lizzyben: > > Broken record here, but by book four, Harry is using hexes (semi- > dark magic) against Draco & co. w/the boil curse & the train stomp. Mike: So, that's it, isn't it? Harry simultaneously throws Furnunculus when Draco throws Densuago outside Snape's classroom in GoF. That's ONE hex by Harry. One. And Draco had already tried to hex Harry when his back was turned earlier in the book. Draco throws two hexes at Harry, Harry throws one at Draco. Until the train ride home. Score at the end of GoF: Harry 2, Draco 2. Harry wins the tie-breaker cuz one of his connected. Neither scores in OotP, unless you want to count Draco's trip jinx on Harry. Draco scores with Petrificus Totalus in the beginning of HBP, the nose and finger stomps are just icing on the cake. Then comes the big duel in the bathroom. High noon at Hogwarts. Draco started that fight. Harry stupidly resorts to a Sectumsempra, a curse that he doesn't know the effects. But he did it in response to Draco trying a Crucio, a spell that Draco DOES know the effects. Totals for the bathroom: Draco 3, Harry 3. Grand total by the end of HBP: Draco shot 6 (not counting the trip) at Harry and connected with 1, Harry shot 5 and connected with 2. That's the canon, that's what actually happened as opposed to saying "the heroes using more & more hexes/dark magic". So, that's the evidence. That's what you have to hang your hat on to say that Harry is this great "Dark Arts" practitioner? Of course I didn't count Harry's spells against Death Eaters. I wonder if you might consider those in self defense and thereby give Harry a pass? Or do you have a different suggestion for how he should have proceded against the DEs? It all comes back to what Steve said. These things don't happen in a vaccuum. Using slightly dark magic in defense of your life is considerably different from using an unforgivable curse to torture into insanity. Context matters as well. > lizzyben: > > He really isn't. If Draco's the bully, how come *he's* the one who > ends up bloody, unconscious, hexed, etc. at the end of these > encounters? Is that usually the way it works? Doesn't the bully > usually get to beat up the victim, instead of the other way around? Mike: It's not for lack of trying. Draco is both a bad shot and a poor tactician. His arrogance allows him to get into situations where he is either outnumbered or unprepared to respond decisively, or both. JKR has both set him up for the smack downs and tried to make us believe they are justified. This is where you make your choice. Did he deserve what he got or not? If you like Draco, you'll undoubtedly conclude the treatment is too harsh. If you see him as the unrelenting jerk with his priorities and objectives all screwed up (guess which one I am? ), you see his smackdowns as the logical consequence of his posturing. > lizzyben: > > But would you agree that the hexes against McLaggan, Smith, were > justified? Or hexing Draco & co. for a verbal insult? That's the > kind of thing that starts to look like bullying, to me. Mike: McLaggan, no, he wasn't really hurt just didn't make the team. Smith, yes, but he's the neutral jerk that gets the pie in the face. Or more like the dead fish in his bed. Hexing Draco - answered above. > lizzyben: > > Well, the big epiphany for me is that "dark magic" essentially *is* > violence. It's a metaphor for violence in the same way that the > Patronus is a metaphor for love & protection. And there's different > levels of dark magic, in the same way that there are levels of > violence in the real world. But it all still involves the use of > force to hurt or injure another person. Mike: Yes, the WW isn't all sweetness and cream. I would have been highly disappointed if I had gotten a story about wizards without a bunch of hexes, jinxes and curses. I think JKR trusts her readers to understand the difference between these and the really dark stuff. I'm not saying she didn't blurr the line sometimes. For the most part, good guys don't use the real dark stuff. But once in a while, they do. Moral ambiguity? Meh, maybe a little. Maybe we are suppose to understand that even good guys lose their perspective once in a while. And maybe we were suppose to get that Draco, for all his posturing, wasn't entirely a bad kid deep down. > lizzyben: > > Well, the problem is that the rules seem to change drastically. > Sometimes violence is presented as cartoonish, like w/the Durselys, > but sometimes it's very serious, like at the Graveyard, and > sometimes it's just hard to tell. Is throwing Montague in the > cabinet "cartoon humor" or an attempted murder? You know? He didn't > recover quickly, & apparantly would've died there. Things that > would fly in one genre wouldn't work in another, & when there's > this mish-mash of genres in HP, it's not clear what the rules are. > The characterization of violence seems to veer schizophrenically > based on who's suffering the violence, who's *doing* the violence, > & how the narrator presents it (comically or seriously). Mike: Is that really a problem? When Montague gets stuck in the toilet you can't see that that one was cartoon humor? Dudley's tongue or pigtail, were you really concerned for Dudley's health? There are all kinds of humor in the books, something for everyone as it were. You liked Draco's and Snape's snark. Others, maybe not so much. I liked the twins quick wit much more than their sight gags. But I don't begrudge the slapstick lovers their humor on the grounds that it's really just cruel and "not funny at all". By the same token, I feel comfortable with school kids applying playground rules to guide their actions. You may feel that type of justice is an indication of an underlying distopia. I never expected Harry to fix the world, I just wanted him to make Tom Riddle take a dirt nap. Mike From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 04:49:57 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:49:57 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E76FF5.5090605@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176976 > I still think this is the key to the morality of > the Imperius in general; context matters. We seem > to have people who view everything as morally > neutral, or who seem to be moral absolutest, Reopening an old subject, my problem with the "good guys" using the Unforgivables is not that one couldn't find (or imagine) situations in which they might be morally justified (though for the Cruciatus I can't imagine even hypothetically justifiable use). Rather it was that through most of the first six books, JKR's morality was pretty absolutist -- these were just not things good guys did: automatic one-way ticket to Azkhaban, and all that. Then suddenly in DH we find the good guys throwing them around rather trivially without so much as a nod in the general direction of the moral conundrum their use raises. In a word, JKR violates her own rules, and hence the readers' expectations. > Certainly you can tell the evil terrorist from those > who are opposing them? Yet on an isolated basis it > might be necessary for the good guy to engage in > the equivalent of terrorism. Yet the good guy are > the good guys, and their purpose is to oppose evil > and tyranny. Please correct me, but this sounds an awful like the end justifying the means. To which I reply: there ARE certain things good guys are not permitted to do and still remain good guys. I think Sirius was clear about that in his description of Barty Crouch -- that in the end no, you could no longer tell the terrorist from those who were opposing them. > Good Guys may do something bad as a matter of > momentary need, whereas for the Bad Guys bad things > are a preferred way of life. Am I the only one who sees a slippery slope here? --CJ From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 05:11:16 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:11:16 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Jo's OWN Words about Political and Religious Overtones in... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E774F4.9030309@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176977 > Oh well - no writer is perfect. Not even Tolkien. ("Teleporno" as the > Quenya form of "Celeborn"? ROFLOL! :D :D :D ) In defense of Tolkien here, I'd say he's the victim of anachronism. The name "Teleporno" was, I believe, crafted well before "porno" became a widely used variant of "pornography", and in all likelihood has roots that got back well before the television age (Tolkien having begun crafting his languages as a teenager before WWI). > All things considered, JKR isn't as "bonk you over the head" with her > Christian overtones as C.S. Lewis Here I'll agree with you. I suspect when JRR Tolkien penned his famous lines in opposition to allegory he secretly had his friend CS Lewis in mind -- the Narnia series is some of the most in-your-face allegory to be had in recent literature (well, aside from the LaHayes' "Left Behind" series, but I don't think anyone considers that literature). --CJ From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 12 06:01:19 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 06:01:19 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <46E76FF5.5090605@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176978 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > this sounds an awful like > the end justifying the means That's because sometimes the end does justify the means, if it never did then there would be no justification, that is to say no reason, for doing anything at all and you'd just sit there as an inert lump. > there ARE certain things good guys > are not permitted to do and still > remain good guys. Too much hand wringing can give morality a bad name. People sometimes think of morality as effete, weak and always a looser, and indeed it is just that if one places the sort of shackles on it you are recommending. I am not saying anything goes, but good heavens let something go, especially in a war. > Am I the only one who > sees a slippery slope here? Life is the art of living on a slippery slope and always has been. Go too far in one direction and you become a moral monster, go too far in the other direction and you're dead and everyone you know is dead and your entire civilization is dead. That was Harry's dilemma, and although he broke a few rules, overall I think he managed rather well. He won but did not turn into a monster. One last thing, I think a lot of people get hung up over the Unforgivable Curses because of the name, but remember who gave them that unflattering name, the Ministry of Magic, and the Ministry isn't exactly the master of morality. Eggplant From salilouisa at googlemail.com Wed Sep 12 08:56:23 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 09:56:23 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176979 Sali: Peter Pettigrew - the how and the why of his betrayal. His motivations, back story, anything about the boy/man he was as opposed to the one we see in the now of the books. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 12 12:39:32 2007 From: amanitamuscaria1 at yahoo.co.uk (AmanitaMuscaria) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:39:32 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176980 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell to find JKR > waiting for you. She has a huge rather battered box in her arms which > she drops just inside the door. "This is for you," she says and > leaves before you can gather your senses. > > You open the box to discover page after page of neatly written notes > and entire sections of typed manuscript. You quickly realize that > what you have is a collection of written, but rejected moments from > DH. (And, OK, maybe from the other 6 books too.) > > According to your personality, you begin to systematically sort and > catalog the items in the hope of finding a particular scene, or you > frantically toss pages aside as you search for that one moment you'd > dearly love to read. > > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was > described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking > for? > > > Potioncat, who suddenly realizes a nice thick layer of HP profits > would be nice. > AmanitaMuscaria now - Oh, if only! I don't think I could refrain from starting at the first page and reading, very carefully ... who am I kidding? It would be an absolutely frantic first read! What I'd love to see is the scene of Hermione getting her letter - it would show so much of her relationship with her parents, and if we went with her to Diagon Alley, it would give SO much information about one of my most-want-to-visit places. All the backstory, of course - I want the scene of Sirius on the bike, I want Snape as a firstie, I want Filch being tortured by the students when he first arrives, I want Hagrid from when he was expelled to when he becomes Keeper of Grounds and Keys - I want the lot. Lovely topic, beautifully put. Cheers, AmanitaMuscaria From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 14:15:58 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:15:58 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176981 > Jen: Yes, more about Lily and James. There was nothing about how Lily > came to see James as someone other than an arrogant toerag, very little > information about James that painted him in a new light. I suppose the > letter and memory of Godric's Hollow were meant to portray James > differently. It was so little to go on though. What did they do for > work? How did they defy LV 3 times? What were their tasks as Order > members? All of that information would have rounded out the characters > much more. Most of the information about them comes from others, > including Godric's Hollow as seen through Voldemort's memory - that > part disappointed me a little. > Alla: You know, it is funny. I of course would not mind reading all that about Lily and James, but I keep thinking about JKR's words that after book 7 you will have all the backstory you need. Let me stress I am immensely curious to read all that you just listed, but I do not feel unsatisfied that I read so little, if that makes sense? Letter actually helped a great deal. It was soooo, I don't know, loving and tender and warm, that in my mind I had no doubts whatsoever what kind of marriage Lily and James had. I also had no doubts that Lily loved Sirius, that sealed any doubts nott that I had many of what kind of young man Sirius was for me. So, I keep thinking of what else I NEED to know to be more satisfied besides the prank, and I actually only came up with one more thing - I want to read more about Lucius Malfoy after war. Wierd, huh? I guess it all me being unsatisfied with him getting such a good deal and wanting to know if he changed even a little bit for the better. I mean, even with Narcissa and Draco I was okay more or less, I mean not that I would mind to see them suffer more, but I get the rationale especially with Narcissa. But the fact that Lucius is just allowed to continue enjoy life and all his crimes went unpunished make me want at least see some shred of decency in him, if that makes sense. I mean, I did not even see that he loves his son that much except at the end. I mean, I have no doubt that he does, but I wanted to see it more. It is all minor all together, but the only thing I can think of. Thanks again Potioncat :) Alla From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 16:07:53 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 00:07:53 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E80ED9.3060107@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176982 eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 12/09/2007 14:01: > I think a lot of people get hung up over the > Unforgivable Curses because of the name, but remember > who gave them that unflattering name, the Ministry of Magic Well, no, actually. JKR gave them that name. Or at least she never bothered to supply us with an alternative, which is the same thing. --CJ From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 12 16:41:40 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:41:40 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <46E80ED9.3060107@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176983 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > Well, no, actually. JKR gave them > that name [The Unforgivable curses]. Then I suppose Voldemort didn't say there is no such thing as good or evil there is only power, JKR said it. An author doesn't necessarily believe everything that comes out of one of her character's mouth. Eggplant From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 17:09:06 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:09:06 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176984 I have noticed that many of the same people who like Snape and find him fascinating also like Draco and deem him a fascinating and complex character. Now, I am a Snape fan, and I DO think he is one of the best characters in the books. In fact, he reminds me of Falstaff, in that he sort of grows out of the boundaries of his own story. However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that kind of character. I think he's pretty stiff and one-note, actually. Far from being fascinating, I think he's a very common little ferrety troublemaker, the kind of boring hum-drum bully that appears in many books and films. Unlike Snape, who has some real internal conflict - Draco has none. He swallows all the crap that his parents have taught him hook, line, and sinker, and like all bullies - he's a wimp, deep down. I mean, he's perfectly willing to kill DD to save his own neck and his family's, but when he's actually confronted with fighting anyone, he immediately backs down. He's not even really evil - which might be interesting - he's just a boring, run of the mill bully. At least, IMO. So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans - why? Why is he so interesting? I'm not trying to be obnoxious - I really want to understand the fascination. Especially since so many other Snape fans seem to be Draco fans, as well. Thanks! Katie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 17:14:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:14:35 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176985 lizzyben wrote: > Well, the weirdness is that it works both ways. Yes, on the surface it is about the dehumanization of Muggle-borns, but the subtext is about dehumanization of Slytherins (and contrasting glorification of Gryffindor). > I don't know how it happened, I'm almost positive it wasn't intentional on JKR's part - but it happened. Maybe that's just human nature, that even when trying to express how awful bigotry is, we can't help but blame "the other" for it. > Surface/subtext > > - Choices are what matter/predestination removes choices Carol responds: So Snape's choice to protect Harry and help him to defeat Voldemort means nothing? Wormtail's choice to betray his friends means nothing? Harry's choice to sacrifice himself rather than fight Voldemort means nothing? I disagree on all counts. Lizzyben: > - World not divided between good & DE/world totally divided between good & evil, us & them > - Good is something you do/ good is something you *are*, & good people can do bad things if they want to. Carol responds: *Or* good people are not perfect and make mistakes. Ron, for example, walks out on his friends before returning to them. Anger very nearly gets the better of him. Harry wants revenge against Snape and expects to kill Voldemort for most of the book and only changes his mind on both counts after seeing Snape's memories. (Note that he uses the Cruciatus Curse on Carrow *before* he has that epiphany.) Harry also chooses the Horcruxes over the Hallows, a crucial decision that probably saves him and the WW. He chooses to publicly vindicate Snape. Snape, the epitome of "them" (Slytherins and, ostensibly, Death Eaters) turns out to be an ally without whom Harry could not have defeated Voldemort. Even the Malfoys are capable of love, and Regulus Black, the Slytherin brother, turns out to be nobler, at least with regard to house-elves, than his Gryffindor brother and at least equally couragerous. The worst traitor in the books is Peter Pettigrew, a Gryffindor. Dumbledore could have gone the way of Gellert Grindelwald but chose to renounce power and the desire to control Muggles (three of whom abused his sister and were indirectly responsible for all the tragedies that followed) through magic. Forgive me, but I think you're seeing what you want to see and ignoring any evidence to the contrary. Lizzyben: > - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that matters - bad Slytherin blood will out, pure Gryffindor blood will save. Carol: There's no such thing as "pure Gryffindor blood." Hermione and Lily are Muggleborns sorted into Gryffindor. It's Harry's and Lily's self-sacrifice, two acts of love on different scales, that have the power of ancient magic. Again, you're ignoring Snape and Regulus, Slytherins who choose good over evil, risking or losing their lives to fight against Voldemort. You're also ignoring Slughorn, who ends up fighting the DEs, and Andromeda, who chose to marry a Muggleborn and lost the love of her sisters by so doing. You're also ignoring the students and staff members from the other Houses who joined the battle against Voldemort and the DEs. I agree that the message that blood doesn't matter is rather garbled. Hagrid thinks that the Malfoys have "bad blood" and he actually says that blood is important with regard to his half-brother, Grawp, but I don't think we're supposed to take Hagrid as our spokesman. And the power of Harry's blood in Voldemort has nothing to do with him or with Gryffindor. It has to do with the power of love via Lily's self-sacrifice, the same power that protects Harry from Voldemort as long as he's with Petunia, no Gryffindor and not even a witch. Her blood has power because it's Lily's blood, which has the power of love. (I do think that "blood" either is or isn't magical, and unicorn blood and dragon's blood have magical properties, but that's altogether different from "Gryffindor blood" or "Slytherin blood," concepts that have no place in the books. Lizzyben: > - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is totally justified. Carol: But it isn't, as Harry learns. McGonagall is *wrong* in her judgment of Snape and Slughorn and Slytherin in general, as the reader learns through "The Prince's Tale. Again, Harry publicly vindicates Snape, he names his second son after two headmasters, one of them a Slytherin (Snape), and he and Draco become, if not friends, at least not enemies. He considers Draco's life worth saving. A Slytherin, Regulus Black, becomes the rallying cry for the house-elves, and Phineas Nigellus says, "Let it not be forgotten that Slytherin played its part" (quoted from memory). I don't like the way that McGonagall judges the whole House by one students' action or the way that she assumes that any of the older Slytherins who choose to fight will fight for Voldemort, either. But she thinks that Snape is a murderer and Slughorn a self-preserving coward. We don't see her changing her view, but she is present for Harry's vindication of Snape and for Slughorn's participation in the battle. Like Harry for nearly seven books, and like Lupin who advocates killing when Harry is advocating more peaceful means (Expelliarmus), like Hagrid, who wrongly informs Harry that all the DEs are from Slytherin, she is judging a whole group by a few. But we, the readers, can see that she is wrong. Not a single Slytherin student fights for Voldemort (Voldie is lying to Lucius), and Draco stops Crabbe from killing or Crucioing Harry. The point is, most of the characters, including Harry until his epiphany, judge by appearances. Sometimes, it's Harry who's judged that way. He speaks Parseltongue: therefore, he must be the Heir of Slytherin and responsible for Petrifying students. He has screaming fits during which he's rolling on the ground; therefore, he must be either unstable or an attention seeker. He brought back Cedric Diggory's body; therefore, he must be somehow responsible for Cedric's death. We, seeing from Harry's pov, know that the other characters are wrong, but we also see the evidence on which their judgments are based (or the absence of evidence, in the case of the many people who doubt Harry's and DD's not-very-convincing testimony that Voldemort is back). Sometimes, the character judged by appearances is someone else: Hagrid, supposedly responsible for releasing Slytherin's monster, first expelled and then, fifty years later, arrested on suspicion of repeating the performance. Sirius Black is regarded by the entire WW as a murderer and a traitor (and his own conduct in PoA lends credence to that belief). Snape, ironically, is viewed in exactly the same way, as a murderer and a traitor, from the last chapters of HBP through "The Prince's Tale" (when Harry and the reader learn the truth) and "The Flaw in the Plan" (when McGonagall and Flitwick and many others learn it). Even Dumbledore is subjected, post mortem, to contrasting accounts of his life and character, and Harry learns that the truth lies somewhere between and that Dumbledore, too, is human and needs to be forgiven. We simply cannot look at Slytherin or Snape or Dumbledore or even Harry as they're presented throughout the books by a narrator seeing from Harry's point of view and expect a clear, objective, and accurate assessment. We have to wait until all the facts are in: "The Prince's Tale" for Snape, "King's Cross" for Dumbledore, and the epilogue for Harry (who names his second son Albus Severus) and Slytherin (which is still a rival House but an okay place to be). We can hope for a friendship between Albus Severus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy, in marked contrast to the enmity between James Potter and Severus Snape or Harry Potter and Draco Malfoy. We can't judge Slytherin by McGonagall's words and actions. *She* is judging the whole by a part, all the students by Pansy Parkinson (who, in turn, is operating on incomplete information--Harry Potter used a deadly curse on her boyfriend the previous year; that boyfriend and their long-time HoH and (till that day) headmaster are, she thinks, loyal DEs; the school can be saved by turning Harry over to Voldemort. Her view is not so far removed from Aberforth Dumbledore's idea that the "good" side should hold a few Slytherins hostage). Both Pansy and McGonagall are wrong, as the Hufflepuffs were wrong to think that Harry was the Heir of Slytherin and the WW was wrong to think that Sirius Black betrayed the Potters to their deaths and murdered twelve Muggles. JKR has been withholding information until the last book. Only when all the facts are in can Harry understand that Slytherin does not equal Death Eater and even Death Eaters can be redeemed. And once Harry understands, the narrator ceases to be unreliable. No more comments about Snape as the man Harry hated. No more assertions that Dumbledore betrayed Harry. Instead we get Harry telling Ron and hermione the truth about both of them (admittedly, offpage) and naming his second son for two flawed but brilliant headmasters--and it's the Slytherin who's praised for his courage. Lizzyben: > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it. Carol: We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the Gryffindor bullies. "The Prince's Tale" restates Harry's discomfort knowing that his father and godfather were indeed arrogant, bullying "toerags." And I think we're supposed to see that the Gryffindors' treatment of Slytherins (and the Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than Draco's treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at the QWC. Harry's Crucio on Carrow puts him on the same level, briefly, as Bellatrix Lestrange. But once he sees Snape's memories, he changes tactics. He ceases to seek revenge and instead, sacrifices himself as an act of love. I doubt very much that he condones bullying on the part of his children (teasing is another matter and an inevitable part of childhood). Lizzyben: > - Women are equals/ women are worthless Carol: Women are worthless? It's Lily's sacrifice that saves Harry. Hermione saves Harry from Bathilda!Nagini and from the DEs who arrive at Xeno lovegood's house. her protective magic keeps HRH alive. Bellatrix is Voldemort's "last, best lieutenant," a powerful force on the bad side. Narcissa's love for Draco enables Harry to fake his own death and confront Voldemort a second time. As for Ginny, it's her age that temporarily keeps her from fighting, and in the end, she's saved from Bellatrix by her mother--women in all cases. Harry's view of Hermione is sufficient in itself to counter this point. Carol, who can't possibly answer every point in this list but disagrees with most of them for the reasons given From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 12 17:38:09 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:38:09 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176986 Katie: > I have noticed that many of the same people who like Snape and find > him fascinating also like Draco and deem him a fascinating and > complex character. > > Now, I am a Snape fan, and I DO think he is one of the best > characters in the books. In fact, he reminds me of Falstaff, in that > he sort of grows out of the boundaries of his own story. > > However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that kind of > character. I think he's pretty stiff and one-note, actually. Far > from being fascinating, I think he's a very common little ferrety > troublemaker, the kind of boring hum-drum bully that appears in many > books and films. Unlike Snape, who has some real internal conflict - > Draco has none. He swallows all the crap that his parents have > taught him hook, line, and sinker, and like all bullies - he's a > wimp, deep down. I mean, he's perfectly willing to kill DD to save > his own neck and his family's, but when he's actually confronted > with fighting anyone, he immediately backs down. He's not even > really evil - which might be interesting - he's just a boring, run > of the mill bully. At least, IMO. > > So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans - why? Why is he > so interesting? I'm not trying to be obnoxious - I really want to > understand the fascination. Especially since so many other Snape > fans seem to be Draco fans, as well. Thanks! Katie Magpie: Well, it's kind of hard to defend something that's personal taste. I like him more than Snape, so there you go. I guess just to answer your own concerns to give how it comes across to me: Katie: Unlike Snape, who has some real internal conflict - > Draco has none. He swallows all the crap that his parents have > taught him hook, line, and sinker, and like all bullies - he's a > wimp, deep down. Magpie: Well, that's a conflict right there, being a bully who's deep down a wimp. I don't see that his swallowing what his parents say makes him not conflicted. To me that partly is the conflict: he buys it, and yet it's completely untrue, and ultimately he learns that when everything comes crashing down and isn't what it promised to be. I personally don't have a problem with all wimp characters--I like Draco more because he's so unsuited to be a bully and so winds up just getting himself beaten up over and over. He's a completely powerless character who tries to find ways of giving himself power and he wins me over with it. Katie: I mean, he's perfectly willing to kill DD to save > his own neck and his family's, but when he's actually confronted > with fighting anyone, he immediately backs down. Magpie: On this, no and no. He's not just perfectly willing to kill DD to save his own neck and his family's--if he was that he'd have killed DD. I think he yearns to kill DD because it's supposed to be a heroic and manly thing to do--this is how he's going to restore his family's dignity and save his father etc., but he's tripped by the fact that he's actually a normal person who isn't a natural murderer. He backs down from fights sometimes but not others--if he backed down all the time he wouldn't get beaten up all the time. Sometimes he sticks to it far longer than he should. More often than not he's bringing everything down on his head and provoking people when he's outnumbered (sometimes even by older people)--if he backed down he'd have a far easier life. Though he certainly can back down-- but again, that doesn't always bother me in a character. He's so lacking in power and lives in a universe where power is everything. And he represents everything the author seems to think a person/boy shouldn't be, so he gets me with that too. I'm kind of a Cheerleader for the Damned with this character. Katie: He's not even > really evil - which might be interesting - he's just a boring, run > of the mill bully. At least, IMO. Magpie: I personally don't feel that making him really evil would make him more interesting--I'm not that interested in Tom Riddle once it's made clear he's just really evil and a sociopath. I don't care about Amycus. I like Luicus more as a screw-up than as a smooth evil operator. Crabbe doesn't come across as that much more fascinating to me because he's the evil one. I think being born into a society (the DE society) that awards true evil while actually being a run-of- the-mill regular person who has to suppress parts of his personality *just* to be a run-of-the-mill bully (well, really, not even that-- Dudley's a far better bully and far more run of the mill because he's not highly strung and on the verge of a breakdown most of the time) is interesting. So why do I find him interesting? I like that he's this hysterical nutter stuck in the situation he's in, which imo is interesting in himself. Not only is he destined to be proven wrong in every way, this dark lord's coming for him--Voldemort's return is worse for Draco than most other characters. I think Draco is a tragic character because he wants to be so much more than he is and doesn't realize he's already more than he wants to be--because he aspires to all the wrong things. Not only does he aspire to be something that is a bad thing to aspire to be, aspiring to be that makes him completely weaken himself so that he's not even as much as the person he could be. I had always hoped for the kind of story we got in HBP so I was pleased with that--I was totally disappointed when I realized that JKR is rather essentialist in the way she writes characters, so that putting a character like Draco through the wringer doesn't result in the character really growing or getting stronger. To me that unfortunately made him seem rather artificial in the last book, like all the themes brought up with his story in HBP were a mistake, lie a by-product of the elder wand. Or like the natural resolution to the story doesn't happen. But up until then--and a lot of the way through DH--his story remained totally interesting to me. He's still my favorite character. And I didn't think Snape turned out all that interesting, frankly, either in the end, so of the two of them I no longer automatically think Snape has so much of an edge. They're both conflicted--most of Rowling's characters are built around a central conflict. I don't know how exactly you see Snape or how you find him that interesting, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would disagree. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 17:51:55 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:51:55 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176987 Jen earlier: > > > First of all, McGonagall made it very clear to Slughorn that he and his students could evacuate if they chose to do so but now was the time to decide upon loyalties. Then the entire house shows up in the Great Hall! What's McGonagall supposed to think happened there except that Slytherin has decided they want to take part in securing the castle against Voldemort? They haven't evacuated, they arrive with the other students. You don't offer evacuation to victims you're on the brink of exterminating, btw. > lizzyben responded: > > Oh yeah you do. That was a threat, pure & simple. You've bought into the Slytherins=Death Eaters mindset. Why wouldn't she think that Slytherin students wanted to fight too? Or that they hadn't evacuated yet, or didn't know what to do, or were looking for safety? Why assume that the Slytherin students' presence in their own school, their own home, was part of some insidious plan to let in Voldemort? Because Slytherins have *already* been rejected from Hogwarts society & are now totally classed as an "Other" that doesn't belong there, anymore. > > > Yet when the Slytherin students do as they're told, that's a sign of their disloyalty, evilness & Death Eater loyalties? What would make you come to that (IMO irrational) conclusion? > Jen replied: > I left my previous comment for you to re-read. If my rhetorical question was confusing, I'll say it plainly: When Slytherin house appeared in the Great Hall, McGonagall assumed they were there because they wanted to take part in securing the castle against Voldemort. Seems the argument about my 'mindset' and irrational conclusion is based on a misreading. > Carol responds to both: I don't understand this argument. McGonagall tells Slughorn, "I shall expect you and the Slytherins in the reat Hall in twenty minutes" (DH Am. ed. 601), which is exactly what she tells Flitwick with regard to the Ravenclaws. She adds that Slughorn can evacuate with his students if he chooses, but that they'll kill any Slytherin who attempts to sabotage the resistance (601). So, she's already assuming that Slytherins will support the wrong side, but she's giving them the opportunity to evacuate along with the younger students from all Houses. But first, all students of all ages from all Houses are to gather in the Great Hall for an organized evacuation. The evacuation takes place *from* the Great Hall, and the younger students from *all* the Houses would have been evacuated in any case. Pansy Parkinson's remark causes McGonagall order the entire house to be evacuated. IOW, if it hadn't been for Pansy's remark and the reaction by the other Houses, standing up and pointing wands at the Slytherins, ickle firsties and all, it's conceivable that some of the older Slytherins might have stayed back to fight for Hogwarts as the students from other Houses did. McGonagall's order makes that impossible. However, given the reaction of the other three Houses and McGonagall's previously stated assumption, any Slytherin (say Blaise Zabini or Theo Nott) who had chosen to fight for Hogwarts would probably have been assumed to be a Voldemort supporter. Their only option at that point is to be evacuated (but that would be the only option for the under-seventeens in any case). Slytherin House is still being judged, entirely unfairly, as the House of Death Eaters, in part because Snape is assumed to have murdered Dumbledore and to have been friends with the Carrows and in part because a total of four Slytherins (AFAWK) have DE fathers. Unfortunately for everyone concerned, IMO, Pansy Parkinson's remark "proves" to McGonagall and the students from the other three Houses that Slytherins are untrustworthy, and they are summarily dismissed from the Great Hall, with the entire House treated as, in effect, naughty children--except that Slughorn knows that McGonagall is shooting to kill. The entire House is judged as guilty until proven innocent, but showing up in the Great Hall as ordered has nothing to do with that judgment. At any rate, *of course*, the Slytherins showed up in the Great Hall. That's where McGonagall ordered them to be. None of the students were supposed to have been evacuated yet. The evacuation took place *from* the Great Hall, and it involved the great majority of students from all four Houses. Only some seventeen or so Slytherins (the seventh years and most of the sixth years) out of seventy (assuming a normal enrollment for that House, which contains no Muggleborns) would have been old enough to join the fight on either side. Carol, again not approving of McGonagall's conduct and noting that her preconceptions are proven false by the story itself From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 18:10:33 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:10:33 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176988 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > Katie: > > I have noticed that many of the same people who like Snape and > find him fascinating also like Draco and deem him a fascinating and complex character. > > > > Now, I am a Snape fan, and I DO think he is one of the best > > characters in the books. In fact, he reminds me of Falstaff, in > that he sort of grows out of the boundaries of his own story. > > > > However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that kind of > > character. I think he's pretty stiff and one-note, actually. Far > > from being fascinating, I think he's a very common little ferrety troublemaker, the kind of boring hum-drum bully that appears in many books and films. <> > > So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans - why? Why is > he so interesting? I'm not trying to be obnoxious - I really want to understand the fascination. Especially since so many other Snape fans seem to be Draco fans, as well. Thanks! Katie > > Magpie: > Well, it's kind of hard to defend something that's personal taste. ***KATIE again: I wasn't asking for a defense, just an illumination. <<>> Magpie: > So why do I find him interesting? I like that he's this hysterical > nutter stuck in the situation he's in, which imo is interesting in > himself. Not only is he destined to be proven wrong in every way, > this dark lord's coming for him--Voldemort's return is worse for > Draco than most other characters. I think Draco is a tragic > character because he wants to be so much more than he is and doesn't realize he's already more than he wants to be--because he aspires to all the wrong things. Not only does he aspire to be something that is a bad thing to aspire to be, aspiring to be that makes him completely weaken himself so that he's not even as much as the person he could be. ***KATIE again: Ok, I can see this. I like the idea of Draco aspiring to "all the wrong things". That is rather tragic. I never thought of him in that light, I guess because I never thought much about him at all. I agree that LV's return is especially bad for Draco - actually for the whole Malfoy family, and they don't even really realize it. Magpie: > I had always hoped for the kind of story we got in HBP so I was > pleased with that--I was totally disappointed when I realized that > JKR is rather essentialist in the way she writes characters, so that putting a character like Draco through the wringer doesn't result in the character really growing or getting stronger. To me that unfortunately made him seem rather artificial in the last book, like all the themes brought up with his story in HBP were a mistake, lie a by-product of the elder wand. Or like the natural resolution to the story doesn't happen. But up until then--and a lot of the way through DH--his story remained totally interesting to me. He's still my favorite character. And I didn't think Snape turned out all that interesting, frankly, either in the end, so of the two of them I no longer automatically think Snape has so much of an edge. They're both conflicted--most of Rowling's characters are built around a central conflict. I don't know how exactly you see Snape or how you find him that interesting, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who would disagree. > > -m > ***KATIE again: I was disappointed with the Lily/Snape storyline, there's no doubt about that. I definitely think it took a lot of Snape's conflict away, and I would have been much happier if he had been a man whose good side and bad side were in a constant state of struggle against each other, instead of him being in love with someone. ICK. I didn't find that the least bit appealing. However, I guess I see Snape differently than JKR sees Snape - as I think many otehr people do. My feeling is that Snape grew from that point. While JKR seemed to feel that it was always, and ONLY, his love for Lily that kept him on the good side, I disagree. It may have begun with Lily, but Snape wasn't stupid. He saw what LV and the DE's were really about, and he wasn't about that. Maybe Snape sisn't even realize what a good man he had become, but I see it, and I think other people do, too. As for Draco's lack of growth/artificiality, I agree with you there. I expected that Draco's whole breakdown at the end of HBP would have resulted in him realizing that he wasn't being true to himself, or something along those lines. I can't say I was disappointed in Draco's lack of a turnaround, at least personally, but from a literary point of view, it really didn't make a lot of sense. Everything in HBP pointed us, and many characters, in a very different direction from DH. Now, I still liked DH very much, because I realize that my expectations are just that, MY expectations, and that the story, ultimately, doesn't belong to me, so I was able to appreciate JKR's story as she wanted it told...BUT, I do think it was pretty flawed, simply from literary POV, and I agree that Draco's character was strangely unchanged by all the events that had come before. Katie From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 12 18:28:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:28:48 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176989 > Katie: He swallows all the crap that his parents have > > taught him hook, line, and sinker, and like all bullies - he's a > > wimp, deep down. Pippin: There are a lot of bullies in canon who aren't wimps. Snape. Scrimgeour. Sirius and James. Magpie: > Dudley's a far better bully and far more run of the mill because > he's not highly strung and on the verge of a breakdown most of the > time) . Pippin: Nobody tried to force Dudley to kill people. But he was certainly high strung and on the verge of a breakdown after his encounter with the dementors. It's clear that something had a life-changing effect on him. I didn't really get that it was the dementors, but for the sake of the narrative all Harry needs to know is that people *can* change. Putting in how it happened would shift the emphasis from judging people by their choices to judging them by what's happened to them, which is not what JKR wants, IMO. It's Harry who's the essentiallist, not her, IMO. Magpie: > I had always hoped for the kind of story we got in HBP so I was > pleased with that--I was totally disappointed when I realized that > JKR is rather essentialist in the way she writes characters, so that > putting a character like Draco through the wringer doesn't result in > the character really growing or getting stronger. Pippin: Huh? That he chose not to let go of Goyle was tremendous growth and strengthening, IMO. Again we don't know how it happened. We have no choice but to judge Draco by his choices, not his experiences. It's certainly not what I would have expected from the boy who panicked when he saw what turned out to be Quirrell in PS/SS. A lot of people who liked Draco as a character liked him better than Ron and frankly hoped that Draco would replace him, either as Harry's friend or Hermione's love interest. For most of canon Draco was way ahead of Ron in the wish-fulfillment department: he looked to be more intelligent, more witty and more exotic and of course having the best of everything doesn't hurt. Pippin From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Wed Sep 12 18:11:43 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (JP Smith) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 11:11:43 -0700 Subject: Identifying and Labeling the HP Series References: <1189509449.1128.65163.m41@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176990 HP (Harry Potter) for Grownups, I have a question for the group. As the title of this message says. How would you go about labeling the HP series as far as the genre of fantasy that it is. For example: JRR Tolkien: High Fantasy Robert E. Howard: Sword and Sorcery So on and so forth. You can definitely make the argument of epic fantasy, given the scope and volumes of the books, but I think this is misplacing them as there is a definite personal element that is usually not at the forefront of such works. What I mean by this is I think at the core of the stories is about the growth of Harry Potter as a person seems to be more often than not the enciting elements of the plot rather than He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named's attempt to control the world. I'm sure that one will bring lots of arguments, heh. So what would you say? And if you have a category please add other examples to give us all perspective. JP PS: Has anyone seen the previews for the new movie "The Seeker"? Harry Potter, Jr anyone? I think the main character's name is Larry Topper. hehe :P [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 18:44:39 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:44:39 -0000 Subject: Identifying and Labeling the HP Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176991 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "JP Smith" wrote: > > HP (Harry Potter) for Grownups, I have a question for the group. > > As the title of this message says. How would you go about labeling the HP series as far as the genre of fantasy that it is. For example: > > JRR Tolkien: High Fantasy > Robert E. Howard: Sword and Sorcery > > So on and so forth. You can definitely make the argument of epic fantasy, given the scope and volumes of the books, but I think this is misplacing them as there is a definite personal element that is usually not at the forefront of such works. What I mean by this is I think at the core of the stories is about the growth of Harry Potter as a person seems to be more often than not the enciting elements of the plot rather than He-Who-Shall-Not-Be-Named's attempt to control the world. I'm sure that one will bring lots of arguments, heh. > > So what would you say? And if you have a category please add other examples to give us all perspective. > > JP ***Katie: I would class Harry (if I HAD to) with books like "Bridge to Terebithia" and "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". These are classic books, full of wonder, that create a whole world...but they're not quite up to Tolkien standards. However, having said that, I think JKR's sort of created her own category. I can't think of any books before HP that were really anything like HP. She made a new genre. A children's book, initially, that grew with the readers and became adult fantasy novels. The books are wholly original in terms of the magical world she has created - not that giants and witches are new concepts, just that she really did a great job of making the old seem new. The books straddle a line between Tolkien-esque high epic fantasy, and simple, energetic, and endlessly readable Roald Dahl type books. That's a crazy line to straddle, but the books do it well. If there's a dark and deep moment (Dobby's death, for example), there's often a counterpoint that is light and whimsical (like Fleur reminding everyone of Mrs. Weasley). In fact, I have recently reminded myself, after reading DH and being onlist constantly talking about deep and complex stuff, how much fun the books can be. I have been flipping through "Quidditch through the Ages" and "Magical Beasts" and just loving the whimsy and the silliness in those. I think it's a brilliant author who can do whimsy and complexity. That's where HP is, for me. I think she's so imaginative and original, it's pretty hard to class the books with any other...It's kind of like asking a Gen Xer "Who else does Nirvana sound like?" No one, of course! : ) Katie >JPSMITH: > PS: Has anyone seen the previews for the new movie "The Seeker"? Harry Potter, Jr anyone? I think the main character's name is Larry Topper. hehe :P ***Katie: Yeah, right?! So silly and derivative. Plus, the main character is American. Bleh. Only British people can be proper wizards! (Just kidding!) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 12 18:52:39 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 18:52:39 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176992 > > Katie: > He swallows all the crap that his parents have > > > taught him hook, line, and sinker, and like all bullies - he's a > > > wimp, deep down. > > Pippin: > There are a lot of bullies in canon who aren't wimps. Snape. > Scrimgeour. Sirius and James. Magpie: I don't think Sirius, James or Scrimgeour are wimps. > > Magpie: > > > Dudley's a far better bully and far more run of the mill because > > he's not highly strung and on the verge of a breakdown most of the > > time) . > > Pippin: > Nobody tried to force Dudley to kill people. But he was certainly > high strung and on the verge of a breakdown after his encounter > with the dementors. Magpie: I wasn't referring to him after he was forced to kill someone. His normal state was, imo, far more highly strung and spazzy than Dudley, who seemed to rule his school quite pleasantly for years. Draco, of course, couldn't even do that--Dudley could keep Harry in his place and Draco couldn't. Dudley's a far more successful bully and much more satisfied in his everyday life that we see. Dudley only gets freaked out by Wizards. In his Muggle world he's doing pretty well. Pippin: It's clear that something had a life-changing > effect on him. I didn't really get that it was the dementors, > but for the sake of the narrative all Harry needs to know is that > people *can* change. Putting in how it happened would shift > the emphasis from judging people by their choices to judging > them by what's happened to them, which is not what JKR wants, > IMO. It's Harry who's the essentiallist, not her, IMO. Magpie: I think Harry and JKR are together on this. I think Dudley and Draco turned into exactly the person they always were, and their life- changing experiences didn't make them who they were but showed who they were. Dudley liked Harry when Harry saved his life. I don't think he changed much beyond that. Even when Harry's pleased by Dudley's change of attitude about him he's still Dudley--"He didn't thank me" etc. The last thing I would take away from this series is the lesson that people can change. There are some changes for plot's sake, sometimes people take a while to show who they really are, but I think JKR was quite serious when she referred to her characters as chess pieces. I think they have their signature move and that's who they are. > > Magpie: > > I had always hoped for the kind of story we got in HBP so I was > > pleased with that--I was totally disappointed when I realized that > > JKR is rather essentialist in the way she writes characters, so that > > putting a character like Draco through the wringer doesn't result in > > the character really growing or getting stronger. > > Pippin: > Huh? > That he chose not to let go of Goyle was tremendous growth > and strengthening, IMO. Again we don't know how it happened. > We have no choice but to judge Draco by his choices, not his > experiences. It's certainly not what I would have expected from > the boy who panicked when he saw what turned out to be Quirrell > in PS/SS. > A lot of people who liked Draco as a character liked him better > than Ron and frankly hoped that Draco would replace him, either > as Harry's friend or Hermione's love interest. For most of canon > Draco was way ahead of Ron in the wish-fulfillment department: > he looked to be more intelligent, more witty and more exotic and > of course having the best of everything doesn't hurt. Magpie: I didn't find it much of a growth, no. Or perhaps I should say I didn't find it much of a change. He grew and got stronger--he did, after all, go from 11 to 17. But no, I don't think his character was much transformed at all--just as I don't think Neville transformed. He grew and got stronger too, but he was still, imo, showing who he was. My experience of his story was still one of being underwhelmed. After all that I think more significant change would have been a lot more natural. I think I saw the changes that were there, they just weren't very fundamental, imo. (Nor were they for Dudley, imo.) And given the way his big moment saving Goyle is written, I get the feeling people read more into it than the author intended. He certainly shows himself to be a different man than Goyle, but if this was a big moment of Draco showing bravery, I think JKR would have lingered over it a bit and have Harry recognize it and think about it too. I don't see such a huge difference between the 11-year- boy who panicked in PS/SS and the 17-year-boy who wouldn't run out of a fire leaving his friend unconcious in it. I think the second boy was in the first boy all along--just as the Keeper who won the Quidditch cup for Gryffindor fifth year was always in the one who screwed up in the earlier games. I'm not sure what Ron vs. Draco has to do with it--I'd be surprised at too many readers considering Draco a wish-fulfillment for what they wanted to be. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 19:08:12 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:08:12 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176993 Pippin: > It's clear that something had a life-changing > > effect on him. I didn't really get that it was the dementors, > > but for the sake of the narrative all Harry needs to know is that > > people *can* change. Putting in how it happened would shift > > the emphasis from judging people by their choices to judging > > them by what's happened to them, which is not what JKR wants, > > IMO. It's Harry who's the essentiallist, not her, IMO. > > Magpie: > I think Harry and JKR are together on this. I think Dudley and Draco > turned into exactly the person they always were, and their life-experiences didn't make them who they were but showed who > they were. Dudley liked Harry when Harry saved his life. I don't > think he changed much beyond that. Even when Harry's pleased by > Dudley's change of attitude about him he's still Dudley--"He didn't thank me" etc. The last thing I would take away from this series is the lesson that people can change. There are some changes for plot's sake, sometimes people take a while to show who they really are, but I think JKR was quite serious when she referred to her characters as chess pieces. I think they have their signature move and that's who they are. ***Katie: I don't think either Harry or JKR is an "essentialist". Their opinions on people change, and people really do change. Now, I agree with Magpie that Draco's character did not change as much as was expected based on HBP. However, I disagree entirely that "Dudley liked Harry when he saved his life." Dudley didn't just like Harry in that moment that Harry saved him, and then go back to being the way he always was, and he didn't only like Harry because he saved him. The dementor attack brought on a change of attitude and POV from Dudley. Dudley realized - probably in a very shocking and difficult moment - that Harry is a different person than Dudley had always supposed him to be. Dudley had a epiphany. He realized that Harry was not weak, but strong. Not wimpy, but brave. Not selfish, but selfless. Not worthless, but inherently full of worth. It was Dudley's wake-up call. It was a profoundly changed Dudley who put that cup of tea outside of Harry's door, who shook his hand before the Dursley's left. Dudley realized he could be wrong, Dudley realized his parents could be wrong, and he realized that the world is bigger than himself and Little Whinging. I liked, very much, the Dudley who I saw in the beginning of DH, and I would never have said that about him in the first 4 books. And as for people changing - I can't think of books where characters grow and change MORE than they do in HP. Harry - Wimpy, frightened, abused child who is completely unsure of himself turns into brave, heroic, powerful wizard who battles dark forces. Harry again - Close-minded, prejudiced teenager turns into a man who understands that everyone is an individual and that he shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. Hermione - Haughty, obnoxious know-it-all turns into helpful, kind, thoughtful and motherly witch who selflessly takes care of her friends. (I know many will disagree with this...just IMO) Just a few examples. My point is, whatever your opinion of their ultimate incarnations, people do very much change in HP. Whether you like them or not is a different issue, but they do change. Katie From psychobirdgirl at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 19:37:08 2007 From: psychobirdgirl at yahoo.com (psychobirdgirl) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 19:37:08 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176994 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "AmanitaMuscaria" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" > wrote: > > > > > > Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell to find JKR > > waiting for you. She has a huge rather battered box in her arms > which > > she drops just inside the door. "This is for you," she says and > > leaves before you can gather your senses. > > > > You open the box to discover page after page of neatly written > notes > > and entire sections of typed manuscript. You quickly realize that > > what you have is a collection of written, but rejected moments from > > DH. (And, OK, maybe from the other 6 books too.) > > > > According to your personality, you begin to systematically sort and > > catalog the items in the hope of finding a particular scene, or you > > frantically toss pages aside as you search for that one moment > you'd > > dearly love to read. > > > > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was > > described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking > > for? > > > > > > Potioncat, who suddenly realizes a nice thick layer of HP profits > > would be nice. > > Now psychobirdgirl: As with most people here I'm sure, I would almost immediately cancel all my plans and hunker down for the full box, I would read it as ravenously as I read anything JKR writes, but honestly, since I assume most of the biggies would be there, I'm a little more curious about some of the smaller pieces, like seeing Hermione go and retrieve the Wilkinses, the scene in her house when the Hogwarts letter arrived, her family attending a Weasley wedding, a lot of Hermione's story, but I also kind of want to know where the Dursleys ended up, and I truly hope that there would be some kind of scene where they see each other again, like if Big D's kids get a Hogwarts letter, can you imagine, I would just love that, knowing how much of Petunia's hate was based on rejection, how would she feel if her grandkids were witches. Anyway, I can think of a hoarde of questions and I can imagine a pretty big box, I hope the answers all fit! psychobirdgirl From cottell at dublin.ie Wed Sep 12 20:33:20 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:33:20 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176995 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > Then I suppose Voldemort didn't say there is no such thing as good > or evil there is only power, JKR said it. An author doesn't > necessarily believe everything that comes out of one of her > character's mouth. Mus takes PS down from the shelf and responds: No, in fact he didn't (although I think the movie had him saying it). "He is with me wherever I go,", said Quirrell quietly. "I met him when I travelled around the world. A foolish young man I was then, full of ridiculous ideas about good and evil. Lord Voldemort showed me how wrong I was. There is no good and evil, there is only power and those too weak to seek it ... Since then, I have served him faithfully, although I have let him down many times. He has had to be very hard on me." Quirrell shivered suddenly. "He does not forgive mistakes easily. When I failed to steal the Stone from Gringott's, he was most displeased. He punished me ... decided he would have to keep a closer watch on me ..." [PS UK pb: 211] Yes, Quirrell has LV in the back of his head, but it's clear here that he's talking for himself (LV only makes an appearance later, and the change of voice is emphasised). After reading DH, it's actually rather hard to fault what he says. He's saying that good and evil can't be defined in absolute terms, which is exactly what has emerged by the end of Book 7. The author put these words in his mouth, and I, for one, was misled into thinking that this was not the message we were supposed to take home, because I thought those "ridiculous ideas" had some currency in the Potterverse. As a retrospective description of HP philosophy, though, it's hard to fault. In a way, this was another case of JKR's misdirection. Where Quirrell was weak, of course, Harry is eventually seen as strong - he does successfully steal from Gringott's. Mus From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 12 20:55:07 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:55:07 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? Message-ID: <1586539.1189630508030.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 176996 Sali: >Peter Pettigrew - the how and the why of his betrayal. His motivations, back >story, anything about the boy/man he was as opposed to the one we see in the >now of the books. Bart: I have my own ideas on that, mostly gathered from hints in the books and a basic knowledge of people. First of all, while the canon is kind of self-contradictory on this, there APPEAR to be about 10 students in each house in each class (about 40 per year, about 280 students in the school). Given this, it is not unreasonable that the 4 boys were the only male students from their year in Gryffindor. It's certainly no stretch to suppose that they were roommates. It's been implied, if not established, that James, and to a lesser extent, Sirius, were both quite charismatic. And, especially since their idea of fun included a lot of rule breaking, it would be VERY difficult indeed to exclude one of their roommates without said roommate resenting it, possibly even showing the resentment in marriettish ways. Also, James and Sirius, by implication, and Lupin, by demonstration, were all quite intelligent. Peter, on the other hand, was not quite as intelligent. So, the boys let Peter in on their fun. They almost certainly liked Peter. But they did not respect him. And (as has been shown in canon), James and Sirius, at least, were not very nice as teenagers, and Lupin was too dependent on their friendship to rock the boat too much. And, noting the conversation in SWM, they could be pretty condescending to Peter, probably continually reminding him how lucky he was to have friends like them. While it's also been established that James, at least, mellowed out by the time he was 17, he probably still thought of Peter as a charity case. Consider how he and Sirius figured that nobody would possibly guess that Peter was the secret keeper. It shows that, while they thought of Peter as a trusted friend, they did not have a very high opinion of him as a human being. They probably STILL had the mentality that they were doing him a favor by allowing him to associate with them. Having been, among other things, a counselor, I have found that a not uncommon way for one member of a couple to control another (usually the male controlling the female, in my experience), is to treat them just that way. He puts the woman down, emphasizing her lack of value, and tell her how lucky she is that he is willing to be her boyfriend. I have seen women get the life sucked out of them by these relationships. And, from Sirius, Lupin, and SWM, I see them doing exactly that to Peter, albeit without knowing what they were doing. Then comes VW1. Morty knows that the major force against him is the OOP. So, through his means, he finds out who the weak link is in the OOP, and discovers that it's Peter (he probably even recognizes the methodology that James & Sirius used on Peter; it's a sociopathic sort of thing to do). And, as a sociopath, he knows exactly how to bring Peter over. He lets Peter know that Peter really is an important person, and if he joined the DE's, they would treat him as an equal, or even a superior. He pulls Peter in, and maintains power over Peter by using the same methods that James and Sirius used, only with deliberate knowledge, and not through thoughtlessness. And although Peter was a rat, he was Morty's toad. Bart From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 12 21:04:40 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:04:40 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176997 > ***Katie: > I don't think either Harry or JKR is an "essentialist". Their > opinions on people change, and people really do change. Now, I agree > with Magpie that Draco's character did not change as much as was > expected based on HBP. However, I disagree entirely that "Dudley > liked Harry when he saved his life." > > Dudley didn't just like Harry in that moment that Harry saved him, > and then go back to being the way he always was, and he didn't only > like Harry because he saved him. The dementor attack brought on a > change of attitude and POV from Dudley. Dudley realized - probably > in a very shocking and difficult moment - that Harry is a different > person than Dudley had always supposed him to be. Dudley had a > epiphany. He realized that Harry was not weak, but strong. Not > wimpy, but brave. Not selfish, but selfless. Not worthless, but > inherently full of worth. It was Dudley's wake-up call. It was a > profoundly changed Dudley who put that cup of tea outside of Harry's > door, who shook his hand before the Dursley's left. Dudley realized > he could be wrong, Dudley realized his parents could be wrong, and > he realized that the world is bigger than himself and Little > Whinging. I liked, very much, the Dudley who I saw in the beginning > of DH, and I would never have said that about him in the first 4 > books. Magpie: ::shrug:: Not to me. I thought Harry just saved his life and so Dudley comically then thought he was cool and made him tea. I can't even imagine Dudley puzzling out something as significant as "Where I always supposed him to be wimpy was brave, not selfish but selfless, not weak but strong, not worthless but full of worth! My parents were wrong, I was wrong etc." I think he just always saw Harry as some kid in the house to beat up and barely thought about him, and then he saved his life and was cool. Cute moment, not that big of a deal imo. I don't feel like Dudley's developed enough to really support it as a huge moment showing me how People Can Change in really fundamental ways that rock Harry's world. I thought the book was just very careful to avoid any moments all that perspective- changing for Harry. Sorry. This was just a book/series that made far more of an impression on me in the way it showed people not changing much than it did about people changing, so I can't honestly agree with any of the bigger things about change. In fact, whenever people argue that the bits of change that are there are significant, they just seem to amplify my impression of how little there is to work with, like trying to make mountains out of mole hills because it seems like there should be a mountain there. Maybe there just isn't a mountain there. Katie:> > And as for people changing - I can't think of books where characters > grow and change MORE than they do in HP. Magpie: Really? Wow. Even if I did think characters grew and changed a lot, to honestly not be able to think of books where they did it more? I think I'd read more books if that were the case. This can't be as good as it gets. Books in this genre usually aren't big on character *development* and HP is not hugely different imo. The kids grow, literally, from 11 to 17, so there's some aspects where yeah, they're going to change. You can't write an 11 year old as a 17 year old (though adults can kind of peter out after 17 and remain obsessed with their own life at Hogwarts--again, an indication that changing throughout life isn't a big focus of the series). But imo everybody comes back to the books knowing they're meeting the same characters they've always seen, and they get their wish. katie: > > Harry - Wimpy, frightened, abused child who is completely unsure of > himself turns into brave, heroic, powerful wizard who battles dark > forces. Magpie: Harry--Brave, heroic wizard who battles dark forces. That's PS/SS. Harry was never wimpy, frightened or even abused in terms of his personality. He was defiant. Katie:> > Harry again - Close-minded, prejudiced teenager turns into a man who > understands that everyone is an individual and that he shouldn't > judge a book by it's cover. Magpie: Harry again--Close-minded, prejudiced teenager who turns into a man without ever having his judgments challenged too much. No Jane Austen "My whole preception of myself is crumbling!" transformative scenes for Harry. New information about other people was not central to his development imo. Katie:> > Hermione - Haughty, obnoxious know-it-all turns into helpful, kind, > thoughtful and motherly witch who selflessly takes care of her > friends. (I know many will disagree with this...just IMO) Magpie: Hermione--Haughty, obnoxious know-it-all who was always and still is able to be kind and thoughtful and motherly and selfless to her friends. Hermione of PS/SS=Hermione of DH. Katie:> > Just a few examples. My point is, whatever your opinion of their > ultimate incarnations, people do very much change in HP. Whether you > like them or not is a different issue, but they do change. > Magpie: All examples I completely disagree with. They don't change very much. Nor do they have to change--the fact that they stay the same is part of the appeal of the series (and they do of course change somewhat from 11-17). You're right that whether or not I like them is not the issue, but pretty much everything you've said that I agreed with about the characters was true before the end of PS/SS. They get older, they get taller, they get more skilled and understand more. But these are still the same people I met as 11 year olds in PS/SS. And as I said, I think the fact that the characters are always who they are is part of the appeal of the series. But that's why I also just don't agree with the idea that they're in fact going through fundamental changes in personality. Once a character shows his/her true self in this universe, imo, that's his/her true self. Every time it seems like there's a set up for more of a fundamental change to me it seemed like it was neatly avoided or underplayed. That seemed part of the way character worked and often worked well. So maybe messing with it would have caused problems. But no, if somebody said to give them a series where the characters changed and transformed I would never give them HP. I think you could easily read PS/SS, go to DH and never have to ask, "Gee, what happened to him/her?" I'm not always saying it as a criticism--a lot of the story is dramatic because of this. It's just that's why I don't think you can have it both ways. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 21:56:33 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:56:33 -0000 Subject: Imperio - Unforgivable or Not In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 176998 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > ... > > One last thing, I think a lot of people get hung up > over the Unforgivable Curses because of the name, > but remember who gave them that unflattering name, > the Ministry of Magic, and the Ministry isn't exactly > the master of morality. > > Eggplant > bboyminn: I'm inclined to agree with you on this point. Far too many people are taking 'Unforgivable' as absolutely and unrelentingly Literal. In general I would agree that these curses are Unforgivable, but what is /general/, and what is specific is quite different. Murder is generally unforgivable, but there are some circumstances in which killing someone is understandable and even legally forgivable, and in some circumstances even desirable. As I've said many times before - Context is Everything. I see this in other areas as well. There is a discussion going on about the nature of Dark Magic, and it is based in what I consider a casual comment by JKR that curse, hexes, and jinxes are 'dark'. But people rarely speak in absolutes. Further people are adding context to the question and to the answer that are not necessarily there. The questioner may have been asking JKR for a clear and precise definition of 'Dark Magic' but JKR may have responded on the broad and general nature of dark magic. I have said many time before that there is Dark Magic and then there is dark magic, the two not necessarily being the same. The books seem to make it clear that there is a specific type of magic that is classified as Dark. What makes it so, we can only guess. But that seems to contradict JKR's reply that hexes, curses, and jinxes are dark. I think she was merely implying that they are dark-ish. I have speculated in the past that there is something in the Creation of magic, rather than it's use, that makes it clearly and definitively Dark. In summary, I think we do ourselves a disservice if we take JKR's statements outside the books, and character and narrator statements inside the book as absolutely literal. People rarely speak in absolutes. I think at best these statement can be considered an aspect of the subject under discussion, but never an absolute all-defining statement. Context must always be considered, even when it is not understood. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed Sep 12 22:06:26 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:06:26 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dark Book, was Re: Dark Magic (+ a little Marietta)/Karma and the Twins In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E862E2.6010207@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 176999 Pippin wrote: > > Pippin: > I'm not disappointed:) Not at all. And I don't think anybody could > accuse me of not looking beyond the obvious :) No, definitely not. :-) I think it's the other way around, you are such a great traveller into beyond the obvious, that you are doing JKR's job. You know, discovering clever clues and good messages that are just not there. > > Snape didn't turn out to be a wonderfully noble person. But he > was true to his own beliefs, fought for them, and was hardly > Dumbledore's puppet. But he was, in the most horrible way. "Keep an eye on Quirrel" indeed. Oh, and going back to book 4, when we all wondered - how come false Moody takes such a huge risk, telling Snape he'd searched his office on Dumbledore's orders, surely Snape will never believe that and it all will come out when he runs to Dumbledore? It's quite obvious now that there was no risk of that - Snape could easily believe that of Dumbledore, given the relationship we are shown in book 7. Irene From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 22:50:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:50:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's character development (Was: Draco...Interesting?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177000 Magpie wrote: > Sorry. This was just a book/series that made far more of an impression on me in the way it showed people not changing much than it did about people changing, so I can't honestly agree with any of the bigger things about change. > The kids grow, literally, from 11 to 17, so there's some aspects where yeah, they're going to change. You can't write an 11 year old as a 17 year old (though adults can kind of peter out after 17 and remain obsessed with their own life at Hogwarts--again, an indication that changing throughout life isn't a big focus of the series). But imo everybody comes back to the books knowing they're meeting the same characters they've always seen, and they get their wish. Carol responds: I think you're right about Harry's basic character--he's brave and has a saving-people thing from the first book. He's also trapped by fate in a way that other characters aren't--Prophecy or no Prophecy, he's going to have to face Voldemort at some point. He has to do so to live rather than merely survive. And, of course, some of the changes in Harry and his friends are merely the usual changes from child to adolescent--discovery of the opposite sex, anger and frustration, the realization that idealized adults are merely human and don't have all the answers. Any book about growing up has to deal with those aspects of adolescence because they're true and real and universal. Also, a character must be recognizable as the same person at eleven or seventeen or thirty-seven, even if he's had a life-changing experience. Harry is still Harry (and Ron is still Ron) in the epilogue. What's important in determining character growth is not the similarities but the differences. In each book, we see slight differences in Harry, and I don't mean merely hormones or new magical knowledge. He's less of a stranger in the WW and more aware of its flaws with every book; he learns how to deal with criticism and the burdens of celebrity, whether he's being universally idolized or ostracized; he learns not to rush recklessly into danger (as in OoP); he learns to pay attention to other people's emotional needs (recognizing Ron's and Hermione's feelings for each other; pitying and starting to care about Luna; understanding Neville's feelings about his parents and learning to respect him; letting go of the idea that he has to do everything himself and letting not only Ron and Hermione but the members of the DA help him). Most important, he learns to perceive others more clearly, not only Luna and Neville but Draco and, most important, Snape, whom he has completely misperceived for nearly seven books. I'm not sure what profound change you expected in him, but I think that letting go the desire for revenge and being able to forgive is sufficiently profound. Ron, whom almost no one is talking about, finally lets go of his insecurities and finds both his courage and himself in one symbolic blow as he destroys the locket Horcrux. Maybe he's the same Ron he's always been, but I think he's found his best self and set aside the parts of himself that cause trouble and strife for himself and his best friend and the girl he loves. (It's a nice touch, too, that he gets into the CoS on his own and lets Hermione destroy the cup Horcrux, showing that he no longer doubts her and trusts her not to doubt him.) Hermione, I'll admit, doesn't change much, but I think that she finally learns to forgive. She sought vengeance against Rita Skeeter and prospective traitors to the as-yet unformed DA and against Ron with everything from attacking canaries to the silent treatment. In DH, she accepts Ron back and admits that she loves him, even if it takes a comment on house-elves to do it. And it seems to me that, even though she still wants to free the house-elves, she at least understands them a little better. It's through her interpretation of Kreacher's belief system and emotions that Harry finally comes to accept and respect Kreacher (who returns the favor by accepting Harry as his master even though his true loyalty is still to Regulus). Speaking of characters who change, Kreacher may not be human, but he certainly does an about face in terms of attitude and behavior. Regulus, though a minor off-page character, also changes in a profound and significant way. Lupin has his own little epiphany, courtesy of Harry. The young Dumbledore changes from a slightly less sinister Grindelwald, whose good intentions nevertheless involved controlling others against their will, to a man who recognized the desire for power as his weakness and strove to keep that desire under control. He remained secretive and manipulative, but he also granted second chances (Snape) and placed numerous people under his protection (Trelawney, Hagrid, the centaur Firenze) and taught Harry to fight Voldemort by understanding him. DH, for Harry, is as much a search for truth as it is a search for Horcruxes. By learning the truth, first about Voldemort in HBP, then about Draco and then Snape and finally DD himself, he achieves a victory based on love and understanding. And he understands a few things about himself that no other character seems to realize, least of all Hermione: he isn't a powerful wizard like Voldemort, however strong his Patronus. He can't outduel Snape, much less Voldemort. His wand acted of its own accord in opposing Voldemort; Harry's own power or will had nothing to do with it. Nor can he survive without Hermione (or Ron, who saves him from drowning, or the unknown ally who helped them find the Sword of Gryffindor--though, of course, he doesn't guess that it's Snape). Any Jameslike arrogance he may have developed in the earlier books because of his skill at Quidditch or his status as the Chosen One is gone by this point. Harry has learned humility, and he walks to what he thinks is his death without a shred of arrogance, laying down his life for the love of his friends. Katie wrote: > > Harry again - Close-minded, prejudiced teenager turns into a man who understands that everyone is an individual and that he shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. > Magpie replied: > Harry again--Close-minded, prejudiced teenager who turns into a man without ever having his judgments challenged too much. No Jane Austen "My whole preception of myself is crumbling!" transformative scenes for Harry. New information about other people was not central to his development imo. Carol responds: Just because Harry isn't as introspective as Lizzy Bennett, who has time to ponder the contents of a letter and consciously realize her imperfections and follies, doesn't mean that Harry doesn't have his own epiphany. You don't go from hating a man and thinking he's a murderer to publicly defending him, pointing out his loyalty to Dumbledore rather than Voldemort and his love for your own mother without a very thorough change of mind and heart. We have a whole chapter devoted to "new information about other people," specifically Severus Snape, that is absolutely central to his development. Without it, he could not have set aside his desire for revenge and substituted forgiveness and understanding, nor could he have accepted Snape's message from DD that he must sacrifice himself rather than fighting back. New information about Dumbledore, with whom he is as obsessed in DH as he is in HBP with Draco Malfoy is also central to his development. In "The Forest Again," he believes that Dumbledore has betrayed him. In "King's Cross," he learns otherwise. (He also sees LV's future and what will happen if he doesn't show remorse.) By the epilogue, he has forgiven both Snape and DD and honored both of them in the naming of his second son. (Needless to say, Tom Riddle receives no such honor.) Carol, who thinks that having Harry think "OMG, I've been so wrong about Snape! I never should have let his sarcasm and detentions mislead me into thinking he was evil!" as he's steeling himself to face death without fighting back would have been both OoC and completely inappropriate From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Sep 12 22:50:26 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:50:26 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco...Interesting? Message-ID: <20070913085026.CTX10401@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177001 Katie: So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans - why? Why is he so interesting? I'm not trying to be obnoxious - I really want to understand the fascination. Especially since so many other Snape fans seem to be Draco fans, as well. Thanks! Katie Sharon: To me, Draco is a much more tortured character than even Harry. Someone who appears so arrogant and conceited, is a bully, but really quite scared on the inside. You can tell he's lived a torturous life with his father (figuratively if not literally) beating the pureblood values into him.He really has no choice but to be racist, conceited and a bulluy, because he is modelled on his father. But you see weakness in him at times and I think that perhaps comes from his father bullying him. he has told all his life that the malfoys are a force to be reckoned with, that they can get whatever they want becuase they are rich and powerful, and pureblooded. But instead of treating his son like the Slytherin prince he's supposed to be, Lucius bullies him and stresses him out with his high expectations. For example, see Lucius at the Quiddich game in COS where Draco comes a cropper -- lucius looks utterly disgusted and no doubt he told Draco as much afterwards. he is only proud of his son when Draco wins something. Otherwise he probably never quite comes up to scratch. That is why I was dissapointed that Draco never rebelled in the 6th or 7th books. But then he probably never could becuase his father's influence on him turned him into an arrogant but weak kind of person, instead of the arrogant, strong person Lusius seems to be. Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dreadr at yahoo.com Wed Sep 12 22:38:18 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:38:18 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177002 I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James with the later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? Lupin was the prefect because James and Sirius stayed in too much trouble -- Pettigrew obviously wasn't prefect material. I would love to know how this totally turned around in one year -- or did Hagrid just have his facts mixed up? debbie From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 13 01:16:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 01:16:10 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177003 > Carol responds to both: > I don't understand this argument. McGonagall tells Slughorn, "I > shall expect you and the Slytherins in the reat Hall in twenty > minutes" (DH Am. ed. 601), which is exactly what she tells Flitwick > with regard to the Ravenclaws. She adds that Slughorn can evacuate > with his students if he chooses, but that they'll kill any > Slytherin who attempts to sabotage the resistance (601). So, she's > already assuming that Slytherins will support the wrong side, but > she's giving them the opportunity to evacuate along with the > younger students from all Houses. But first, all students of all > ages from all Houses are to gather in the Great Hall for an > organized evacuation. The evacuation takes place *from* the Great > Hall, and the younger students from *all* the Houses would have > been evacuated in any case. Jen: Initially I read that McGonagall was offering Slughorn a means to evacuate his students prior to the big meeting in the Great Hall if that was their choice, but after re-reading the relevant section I agree the evacuation for all students was meant to take place from the Great Hall. However, I don't agree McGongall assumed all of Slytherin house was supportive of the wrong side. The reason why is because McGonagall tells Slughorn: "The time has come for Slytherin house to decide upon its loyalties." (chap. 30, p. 602, Am.) From HBP we know that Slughorn is not a DE/Voldemort sympathizer since he spent a year running away from them before joining Dumbledore at Hogwarts. He refused to recruit DE children into his network. Likewise, McGonagall trusted him enough to make him HOH when Snape left. Nothing appears to have changed by the end of DH: McGonagall sends a cat patronus to Slughorn the same as the other heads. So when these two meet up in the hallway and McGonagall says her piece, she's telling Slughorn it's time for him and the Slytherin students who oppose Voldemort/the DEs to stand up and declare their real allegiance instead of hiding behind the symbol of Slytherin house as a safety net. That will require them to oppose those in their own house who support LV. Carol: > Pansy Parkinson's remark causes McGonagall order the entire house to > be evacuated. IOW, if it hadn't been for Pansy's remark and the > reaction by the other Houses, standing up and pointing wands at the > Slytherins, ickle firsties and all, it's conceivable that some of > the older Slytherins might have stayed back to fight for Hogwarts > as the students from other Houses did. McGonagall's order makes that > impossible. Jen: The difference is I put the emphasis on 'if it hadn't been for Pansy's remark.' Pansy declared her intention to sabotage and no other Slytherins stood up to side with the rest of the students over Pansy - they all remained seated. They had the same chance that the rest of the students did and none of them took the opportunity. The right choice was taking the risk to openly declare allegiance. Carol: > However, given the reaction of the other three Houses and > McGonagall's previously stated assumption, any Slytherin (say Blaise > Zabini or Theo Nott) who had chosen to fight for Hogwarts would > probably have been assumed to be a Voldemort supporter. Their only > option at that point is to be evacuated (but that would be the only > option for the under-seventeens in any case). Jen: As long as no Slytherins opposed Pansy then yes, they are considered supportive of her agenda. Carol: > Slytherin House is still being judged, entirely unfairly, as the > House of Death Eaters, in part because Snape is assumed to have > murdered Dumbledore and to have been friends with the Carrows and > in part because a total of four Slytherins (AFAWK) have DE fathers. > Unfortunately for everyone concerned, IMO, Pansy Parkinson's remark > "proves" to McGonagall and the students from the other three Houses > that Slytherins are untrustworthy, and they are summarily dismissed > from the Great Hall, with the entire House treated as, in effect, > naughty children--except that Slughorn knows that McGonagall is > shooting to kill. The entire House is judged as guilty until proven > innocent, but showing up in the Great Hall as ordered has nothing to > do with that judgment. Jen: It's more that the Slytherin students themselves silently declared they can't be trusted in battle by remaining seated. It's a replay of the scene in the Great Hall in GOF when many Slytherins remained seated instead of toasting Harry, only this time the stakes are much higher. It's no longer doubting LV is back or disliking Harry personally; they *know* LV is taking over and have just spent a year under his appointed regime watching the atrocities that took place. McGonagall doesn't prepare for battle outside Slughorn's awareness or remove him as HOH when she takes matters into her own hands. She doesn't make different arrangements for Slytherin house than the other houses. Those are the types of things I would expect McGonagall to do if she truly believed Slytherin was already a lost cause. McGonagall's not one to make meaningless gestures for the sake of it. She believes Slughorn capable of stepping up to the plate and convincing those students in his house who oppose Voldemort to step up with him (as I read it). Jen From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 02:16:56 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:16:56 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: <20070913085026.CTX10401@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177004 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > For example, see Lucius at the Quiddich game in COS where Draco comes > a cropper -- lucius looks utterly disgusted and no doubt he told > Draco as much afterwards. This scene is from the movie, not from the book, sorry :-). Lucius Malfoy never attended any Quidditch games at Hogwarts. In CoS he appeared at the school twice, once in Hagrid's cabin and another time - at the end of the book, but this is it, no Quidditch games :-). zanooda From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 13 02:42:26 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 02:42:26 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177005 > Carol responds: > > You want us to choose *one* scene? Not the whole history of Severus > Snape (or whoever our favorite character may be)? snip > > Carol, who always has trouble choosing just one thing and hopes that > Potioncat doesn't mind her fudging a little on the question Potioncat: One thing? Oh, I did say one didn't I? Oh dear, Maths! I'd like to see some Hogwarts scenes. I'd like to see the dynamics between the teaching staff and headmaster during the school year. I'd like to see Neville refusing to cast the cruciatus. I'd like to see something that told me more about how Snape protected the students from Carrow. I'd like to see Headmaster Snape's welcomimg speech. And, I'd like to see all the things other people have mentioned. I think there's a real good chance we'll get to see the Theo/Draco section at some point. Unless it became Draco/Blaise in HBP. From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Sep 13 03:51:33 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:51:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <1586539.1189630508030.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <1586539.1189630508030.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <46E8B3C5.1040705@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177006 > Bart: > First of all, while the canon is kind of self-contradictory on this, there > APPEAR to be about 10 students in each house in each class (about 40 per year, > about 280 students in the school). Whoa, there. This is what happens when everyone's so obsessed with the numbers - There are 10 students for each house in Harry's year *that JKR has defined* - backgrounds, personalities, etc (even that haven't appeared on her page, it's all presumably in her notes given the list we've seen) - it's a sketch of the student body, a way for her to model the reactions of the larger group. It's a microcosm. Would we honestly expect her to come up with so much as names for all of a larger student body? This assumption that because she's only got 40 characters on the class list, that there's only 40 students in harry's year, is unfair - it's as if saying "You didn't make a longer list, so you're not _allowed_ to say that there's thousands of students" From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 13 04:09:23 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:09:23 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <46E8B3C5.1040705@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177007 Random 832 wrote: snip > Would we honestly expect her to come up with so much as names for all of > a larger student body? This assumption that because she's only got 40 > characters on the class list, that there's only 40 students in harry's > year, is unfair - it's as if saying "You didn't make a longer list, so > you're not _allowed_ to say that there's thousands of students" Potioncat: As Bart said, canon is contradictory on the numbers. We fans need to accept that maths is not important to JKR and they cannot be relied upon. It would have been so much better if she had been more vague in numbers, added a few more teachers, and hadn't worried about characters' names and back-stories. How you use the numbers will depend on your purpose. But to my mind, if you want to increase the numbers over the 40, you have to keep the ratio of known students to 40. So, in NEWT Potions Harry's 6th year, we have at least 12 out of 40 students who scored E or better. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 05:38:53 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:38:53 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Identifying and Labeling the HP Series In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709122238pb4b241ehcb1c56c3492e4a50@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177008 JP: PS: Has anyone seen the previews for the new movie "The Seeker"? Harry Potter, Jr anyone? I think the main character's name is Larry Topper. hehe :P Lynda: Haven't seen the previews, but I read the Dark is Rising books the movie is taken from when I was a kid, long before HP was started. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 13 06:47:05 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:47:05 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <77254036-8FB8-48D3-8780-F19382FA22AB@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177009 On 2007, Sep 11, , at 12:21, potioncat wrote: > What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was > described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking > for? I would like to find out if any of the Hogwarts teachers had married or had children. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Sep 13 12:00:07 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:00:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46E92647.6080705@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177010 > Random 832 wrote: >> it's as if saying "You didn't make a longer list, so >> you're not _allowed_ to say that there's thousands of students" > > Potioncat: > As Bart said, canon is contradictory on the numbers. Random832: That would be true, if there canon stating "40 students in Harry's year". There simply is not. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 13 12:17:15 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:17:15 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <46E92647.6080705@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177011 > > Random832: > That would be true, if there canon stating "40 students in Harry's > year". There simply is not. Potioncat: First year flying lesson. Gryffindor and Slytherin combined class. We're told there are 20 brooms. Most of the descriptions of hall ways and games make it seem like a lot of students---much more than 40 per year. Yet there are as many descriptions that fit with the smaller number. So even when list members call for canon at 20 paces, neither side wins. Some of us, however, argue for the pure fun of it. ;-) From va32h at comcast.net Thu Sep 13 12:20:48 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:20:48 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177012 I'd scoop up the box, run out the door calling after JKR, and cheerfully tell her to take her box back, thanks. I have my own imagination that serves me quite well. And I'd just as soon use it than be disappointed in what I might find in that box. va32h From nitalynx at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 13:03:16 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:03:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177013 Jen Reese wrote: > The difference is I put the emphasis on 'if it hadn't been for > Pansy's remark.' Pansy declared her intention to sabotage and no > other Slytherins stood up to side with the rest of the students over > Pansy - they all remained seated. They had the same chance that the > rest of the students did and none of them took the opportunity. The > right choice was taking the risk to openly declare allegiance. Nita: So, the scene went something like this: McG: So, there's going to be a battle... Voldie: Not necessarily. Give me Potter and I'll leave you alone and give you stuff! Everyone: *stares at Harry* Pansy (apparently a bit slow on the uptake): "But he's there! Potter's _there_! Someone grab him!" Harry (even slower than Pansy): *(evidently) expects people to do as she says, or something* Gryffs, Puffs and Claws: *rise and draw wands on Pansy* Harry: *is "awestruck and overwhelmed"* I mean, honestly, did anyone perceive Pansy as an effective threat? She wasn't even trying to *do* anything! As the scene goes, you can sort of read it as the Good houses taking a defensive stance just in case the Slyths decide to Accio Harry carry him out of the castle. Understandable. However, if the Slyths joined them, it would be *a few hundred people* drawing wands on *one* girl for something she said. And would that really make the Slyths good? Or would people argue that they sided with the likely winner (3 houses vs Pansy - not hard to decide) to save their own skins? I think making a scapegoat out of their classmate to impress McG and others would have been awful of them. I'm glad they stuck by her, despite her bad social awareness, selfish thinking and big mouth. You call it "declaring allegiance", in the Good Guys vs Voldemort sense, I suppose. And if the three other houses were drawing their wands on Voldie, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But they weren't. It was just one girl, calling for an action they wouldn't take anyway. > Jen: As long as no Slytherins opposed Pansy then yes, they are > considered supportive of her agenda. Nita: How so? Pansy didn't suggest joining Voldemort. She suggested accepting his ultimatum. There's no way to tell why she did that, but I think the chances that she believed his threats and promises, and then chose the obviously (for her) lesser of two evils, are pretty good. > Jen: It's more that the Slytherin students themselves silently > declared they can't be trusted in battle by remaining seated. > It's a replay of the scene in the Great Hall in GOF when many > Slytherins remained seated instead of toasting Harry, only this time > the stakes are much higher. It's no longer doubting LV is back or > disliking Harry personally; they *know* LV is taking over and have > just spent a year under his appointed regime watching the atrocities > that took place. Nita: Not only the stakes are higher, but the others aren't toasting, or verbally declaring their support of Harry, or even just standing around him. They are *drawing wands* on the Slyths' classmate. I think it was you who asked what else McG was supposed to say/do in that situation (sorry if I'm wrong). Well, my reaction would be to ask/tell Pansy and *everyone who agreed with her* (instead of "her house") to leave. Even if the result was exactly the same (all Slyths leaving), it would have been a better thing to do, IMO. Nita, feeling very uneasy after imagining the scene with "better" Slyths drawing wands behind Pansy's back... From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 13:34:21 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:34:21 -0000 Subject: Pansy in the Great Hall WAS: Re: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177014 Nita: > I mean, honestly, did anyone perceive Pansy as an effective threat? > She wasn't even trying to *do* anything! Alla: I did. There was no way of knowing for me that some of her classmates would not carry that threat into action. > > Jen: As long as no Slytherins opposed Pansy then yes, they are > > considered supportive of her agenda. > > Nita: > > How so? Pansy didn't suggest joining Voldemort. She suggested > accepting his ultimatum. There's no way to tell why she did that, but > I think the chances that she believed his threats and promises, and > then chose the obviously (for her) lesser of two evils, are pretty good. Alla: Not Jen, but to me it is absolutely same thing as suggest to join Voldemort, because accepting his ultimatum - giving him Harry, means pretty much Voldemort wins to me anyways. So, yes, to me it is suggesting joining Voldemort. Alla. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Sep 13 13:38:52 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:38:52 -0000 Subject: Identifying and Labeling the HP Series In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177015 > JP > > PS: Has anyone seen the previews for the new movie "The Seeker"? Harry Potter, Jr anyone? I think the main character's name is Larry Topper. hehe :P Magpie: Them's fightin' words. That is the movie of The Dark is Rising, a book (and series) that came out well before Harry Potter. The main character is Will Stanton, my fictional love since the age of 11. In the book he's nothing like Harry, really (except for becoming a wizard at 11 and being English, I guess) but the movie has completely changed the story and Will. The Dark is Rising fandom has been watching developments on it with growing horror. Imagine if the HP movies had made Harry American, changed the Dursleys into nice people, changed Ron and Hermione into one person and made Harry bff with Snape. That's the kind of changes we're talking about. -m From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 14:37:40 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:37:40 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? - Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177016 --- "Katie" wrote: > > I have noticed that many of the same people who like > Snape and find him fascinating also like Draco and > deem him a fascinating and complex character. > > ... > > However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that > kind of character. I think he's pretty stiff and > one-note, actually. Far from being fascinating, I > think he's a very common little ferrety troublemaker, > the kind of boring hum-drum bully that appears in many > books and films. ... > > So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans > - why? Why is he so interesting? ... bboyminn: I'm not really a Draco fan, but at the same time I do find him a fascinating character, not so much because of what I see on the page, but more so because of what I imagine off page and in Draco's internal landscape. That fact that I am even willing and perhaps even eager to examine Draco's internal landscape, that alone tells me he is a fascinating character. The fact that I am drawn to examine him tells me he is worth examining. Further, I do see a great deal of change in Draco in the book. The problem is, we see the turmoil the precedes change, but never the actual moment of revelation where Draco morphs. In the beginning Draco is idealistic. He has a fantasy version of how he perceives the world and his place in it. By the end, Draco is being crushed by the cold realities of life and of his beliefs. I've said before that early on Draco sees Voldemort reign as a vision of Voldemort, Lucius, and Draco standing shoulder to shoulder on a high balcony while the rest of the world gathers in the square below and bows down to them. Draco fancies himself the Crown Prince of the Empire. Certainly he will give out 'dirty' orders, but he will never have to dirty his own hands. So, Draco has the grand and glorious vision of what Voldemort's rule will look like, which in turn makes Draco eager to be part of it. The part missing from his vision is the bowing and scrapping, and what must be done to get him on that balcony and what must be done to keep him there. I still say that it was Draco who approach, directly or indirectly, Voldemort with his knowledge of the possibilities that the Vanishing Cabinet represented. Draco saw himself bringing the information, being rewarded while someone else would have to dirty themselves carrying out the plan. Surprise! Surprise! When it is Draco who must dirty himself. Suddenly the full realization of what it means to serve Voldemort is upon him, and the realization grows with ever increasing intensity from that point on through the next two books. Now that Draco sees it is not all standing on balconies, and now sees what it means to take and hold power over the wizard and muggle world, being a Death Eater is not so appealing. Now, I think, the lack of satisfaction in many people's minds is because they didn't get a long Shakespearian monolog in which Draco renounces his past and embraces his new better future. An endless dramatic soliloquy in which Draco spells out the error of his ways and professes his new enlightened future. The problem is, that only happens in Shakespeare and other such pretentious and overwrought drama. In real life, these accompanying thoughts and revelations happen on the inside. I think we see Draco at the peak of his revelation at the end of the last standard chapters in the last book. Then the actual transition occurs off page, and 19 years later we see a much humbler and transformed Draco. Draco has changed, he is not the arrogant self-important bully we see in the beginning. He clearly has had a revelation, even if the only evidence we have is a polite nod to Harry. The old Draco would have been more likely to give Harry a one(USA) or two(UK) fingered salute than a polite nod. It is Draco's internal landscape that fascinates me and it is in this internal landscape that Draco's real changes occur. In the outside world, Draco's struggles and changes are only implied. I think that is also what makes all the characters interesting, not so much what we see on the outside but what we imagine on the inside. I also think that is what makes JKR's books so good. She doesn't tell and show us everything, she leaves room for our imaginations to create the world she only implies. As an example, if you add up all the descriptions of Ron in all the books, it's still a pretty thin description. Yet, who among us doesn't have an absolutely vivid picture of Ron in our minds. The power of imagination...embrace it. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From iam.kemper at gmail.com Thu Sep 13 15:04:23 2007 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (Kemper) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:04:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <700201d40709130804u5ee49ffawab6fa383ed02a43e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177017 > Nita: > You call it "declaring allegiance", in the Good Guys vs Voldemort > sense, I suppose. And if the three other houses were drawing their > wands on Voldie, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But they > weren't. It was just one girl, calling for an action they wouldn't > take anyway. Kemper now: It was just one girl. Everyone else who stood wands drawn against her didn't talk to the person next to them to see what they were going to do. There was no conversation of a next step. Each one of them just stood not knowing others would stand as well. They did not stand against Pansy. They stood for Harry. > > Jen: As long as no Slytherins opposed Pansy then yes, they are > > considered supportive of her agenda. > > Nita: > How so? Pansy didn't suggest joining Voldemort. She suggested > accepting his ultimatum. There's no way to tell why she did that, but > I think the chances that she believed his threats and promises, and > then chose the obviously (for her) lesser of two evils, are pretty good. Kemper now: It is easy to see Pansy fearful and wanting to live. But by accepting his ultimatum, she is actively joining Voldemort whether she suggested aligning with him or not. > > Jen: It's more that the Slytherin students themselves silently > > declared they can't be trusted in battle by remaining seated. > > ... It's no longer doubting LV is back or > > disliking Harry personally; they *know* LV is taking over and have > > just spent a year under his appointed regime watching the atrocities > > that took place. > > Nita: > Not only the stakes are higher, but the others aren't toasting, or > verbally declaring their support of Harry, or even just standing > around him. They are *drawing wands* on the Slyths' classmate. Kemper now: You're right, they aren't verbally declaring support. They stand as one, drawing their wands, non-verbally shouting their support of Harry. It's like a more powerful 'thumbs up' to Harry. Kemper From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 15:10:50 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:10:50 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? - Numbers In-Reply-To: <46E8B3C5.1040705@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177018 --- Random832 wrote: > > > Bart: > > First of all, while the canon is kind of > > self-contradictory on this, there APPEAR to be > > about 10 students in each house in each class > > (about 40 per year, about 280 students in the > > school). > Random832: > > Whoa, there. This is what happens when everyone's so > obsessed with the numbers - There are 10 students for > each house in Harry's year *that JKR has defined* - > backgrounds, personalities, etc ... It's a microcosm. > > ... This assumption that because she's only got 40 > characters on the class list, that there's only 40 > students in harry's year, is unfair - ... bboyminn: Well, I'm not suppose to say this but...I agree. Once again fans are making huge assumptions. There seem to be 10 students in Harry's Gryffindor class year, but the 280 number has always been hopelessly flawed. If we applied that same logic to my school, you would assume the whole school was 180 students. But if we simply pick another class year as our model, you would then assume the total was 360 students. That's quite a difference. By the way, the actual total was about 320. One class year does not define a whole school. True it can be used to come up with a vague and general approximation, but that's all...vague and general. It is unreasonable to assume every class in every year is exactly the same size. It is also unreasonable to assume that every House is exactly the same size. That may seem to be true in Harry's year, but Harry's class year does not define the world for all time. In addition I think the fact that JKR defined 40 students with backstories and personalities is coincidental to the fact that there seems to be 40 students in Harry's school year. Yes, the both seem to add up to the same number, but again, coincidental. One does not define or confirm the other. Those 40 students on the list represent a list of all students in all years that JKR can draw on when ever she needs to bring a new character into the story. She created the list so she would have fully realize characters when she needed them, and therefore not have to make them up on the spot. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 13 15:40:26 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:40:26 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? Message-ID: <5280.1189698026158.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177019 From: Random832 >> Bart: >> First of all, while the canon is kind of self-contradictory on this, there >> APPEAR to be about 10 students in each house in each class (about 40 per >year, >> about 280 students in the school). Random832: >Whoa, there. This is what happens when everyone's so obsessed with the >numbers - There are 10 students for each house in Harry's year *that JKR >has defined* - backgrounds, personalities, etc (even that haven't >appeared on her page, it's all presumably in her notes given the list >we've seen) - it's a sketch of the student body, a way for her to model >the reactions of the larger group. It's a microcosm. Bart: The estimate of the student body only made it more likely that they were roommates; it still is a reasonable assumption even assuming that JKR math is at its usual levels. Consider: Let's say that each potions course that Professor Snape teaches is (and this is a very conservative estimate), 4 hours per week. Assuming that Harry's case is typical, he teaches two houses, same year, in each class. If he teaches EVERYBODY from the same year at once (it is at least implied that Potions is always a required class), then that's 4 x 2 x 6 = 48 hours a week, plus his advanced class. OK, change the periods to 45 minute periods, and you get a teaching schedule closer to 40 hours a week. Now, did you get the impression that his classes had more than 20 students in them? Of course, it is a reasonable supposition that JKR never considered this. But that merely changes my supposition that the 4 were roommates from a near-certainty to a high probability. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 16:48:12 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:48:12 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177020 > lizzyben wrote: > > > > - Choices are what matter/predestination removes choices > > Carol responds: > So Snape's choice to protect Harry and help him to defeat Voldemort > means nothing? Wormtail's choice to betray his friends means nothing? > Harry's choice to sacrifice himself rather than fight Voldemort means > nothing? I disagree on all counts. lizzyben: Yep, that's right, because all of those choices were predestined by that person's essential character. Choices simply *show* who you are, they don't change you. Snape was born nasty but loving Lily, Harry was born w/a saving-people-thing, Wormtail was born a syncophant for the biggest bully, and their "choices" will always reflect that essential character. People can't change. I wish I'd known this was the case earlier, because I could've just read SS & saved some time. > Lizzyben: > > - World not divided between good & DE/world totally divided between > good & evil, us & them > > - Good is something you do/ good is something you *are*, & good > people can do bad things if they want to. > > Carol responds: > *Or* good people are not perfect and make mistakes. Ron, for example, > walks out on his friends before returning to them. Anger very nearly > gets the better of him. Harry wants revenge against Snape and expects > to kill Voldemort for most of the book and only changes his mind on > both counts after seeing Snape's memories. Dumbledore could have gone the way of Gellert > Grindelwald but chose to renounce power and the desire to control > Muggles (three of whom abused his sister and were indirectly > responsible for all the tragedies that followed) through magic. > Forgive me, but I think you're seeing what you want to see and > ignoring any evidence to the contrary. lizzyben: Well, I obviously disagree. I don't like most of the main characters, but JKR does & that's what matters. I think DD's totally evil, she considers him the "epitome of goodness." The flaws & faults of the good guys are forgiveable, or don't matter. Harry's crucio is because he's "not a saint," but he's still Jesus in the end & will save the wizarding world w/his sacrifice. Hermione can disfigure students, & it's justified. Of course good people can make mistakes, that doesn't take away from their *essential* goodness & worthiness. While the flaws of the good guys are overlooked, the flaws of the bad guys are fatal & irreversible. There's little to no forgiveness or redemption of the designated bad guys. Thank God for Snape, who was almost good enough to be a Gryffindor, and is valued for his Gryffindor-esque trait. > Lizzyben: > > - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that matters - bad > Slytherin blood will out, pure Gryffindor blood will save. > > Carol: > There's no such thing as "pure Gryffindor blood." Hermione and Lily > are Muggleborns sorted into Gryffindor. It's Harry's and Lily's > self-sacrifice, two acts of love on different scales, that have the > power of ancient magic. > I agree that the message that blood doesn't matter is rather garbled. > Hagrid thinks that the Malfoys have "bad blood" and he actually says > that blood is important with regard to his half-brother, Grawp, but I > don't think we're supposed to take Hagrid as our spokesman. And the > power of Harry's blood in Voldemort has nothing to do with him or with > Gryffindor. It has to do with the power of love via Lily's > self-sacrifice, the same power that protects Harry from Voldemort as > long as he's with Petunia, no Gryffindor and not even a witch. Her > blood has power because it's Lily's blood, which has the power of > love. (I do think that "blood" either is or isn't magical, and unicorn > blood and dragon's blood have magical properties, but that's > altogether different from "Gryffindor blood" or "Slytherin blood," > concepts that have no place in the books. lizzyben: I'm going to go more into this, because it's one of the more repulsive messages in HP. Blood DOES matter - it's almost all that matters. JKR has stated that people can have magic *only* if they have wizarding ancestors. Even muggle-borns have wizarding blood. W/O pure wizarding blood, you can't do magic. So in a way, LV was right. Aunt Marge was right, too - "Bad blood will out." Reading over her speech in POA, I can now see that Aunt Marge really had the essential themes down. Aunt Marge: "You mustn't blame yourself for the way the boy's turned out, Vernon," she said over lunch on the 3rd day. "If there's something rotten on the inside, there's nothing anyone can do about it." Hagrid, our guide to the wizarding world, tells Harry in SS: "Rotten ter the core, the whole family, everyone knows that. No Malfoy's worth listening ter." Aunt Marge: "Weak. Underbred... It all comes down to blood, as I was saying the other day. Bad blood will out." Hagrid: "Bad blood, that's what it is." Hagrid's message is echoed by Aunt Marge, in almost the same exact terms: If there's something rotten on the inside, that child is going to turn out bad, & there's nothing anyone can do about it. That person has "bad blood," they're not worth listening to, & they're not worth even trying to help. Bad blood will out. This is determinism at its core - people are born good or bad, and their "blood" or character can't change. Those w/"bad blood" are rotten on the inside, & will eventually prove their evilness - it's no use trying to help them or show them compassion. Might as well stuff them out of sight... And that is the message that is endorsed w/Voldemort, & Slytherins in general for the most part. "Aunt Marge reached for her glass of wine. "It's one of the basic rules of breeding. You see it all the time with dogs. If there's something wrong with the bitch, there'll be something wrong with the pup - " I hate to go there, but this is the take-home message about the Gaunts. The Gaunts are presented as weak, inbred, "bad blood" all around, which makes sense since they're the heirs of Slytherin. And this "bad blood" reaches its ultimate conclusion w/Voldemort. Dumbledore: "Marvolo, his son, Morfin, and his daughter, Merope, were the last of the Gaunts, a very ancient Wizarding family noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." Gaunts have bad blood; their violence & evil is in their VEINS. Since there is something wrong w/the bloodline, there will be something wrong w/Merope's child. Evil, like magic, is in the blood. Contrast this w/Harry's goodness, which apparantly is also in his blood. JKR says that Harry's blood contains "hope & goodness" & is so pure that even a drop would be enough to make Voldemort repent. Harry's goodness isn't in his thoughts or actions or emotions - it's in his BLOOD. And this is true all Harry's life; no matter what he does or who he tortures, he will always be of pure blood. Lily's blood is so pure & good, her sacrifice can save & protect her child. Harry's blood is so pure & good, his sacrifice can save the wizarding world & protect his followers from harm. That's some powerful blood. So, yes, in the end Gryffindor Harry is portrayed as someone of good, pure, blood that makes him moral & worthy. Slytherin Voldemort is portrayed as someone of "bad, tainted blood" that makes him evil & irredeemable. In her interview, JKR said that Slytherin House is now not so bad, because it has been "diluted." That's an odd choice of words - but it falls perfectly in line w/this philosophy. Pure-blood Slytherins have "bad blood", that blood makes them morally evil, and that evil can only be "diluted" by the addition of new, better blood. It's extremely creepy - & it reinforces Hagrid & Aunt Marge's message - "bad blood will out". Actually, looking back Aunt Marge was right about something else: "I won't have this namby-pamby, wishy-washy nonsense about not hitting people who deserve it. A good thrashing is what's needed in ninety- nine cases out of a hundred." That message also seems to be endorsed at the end of this series - Aunt Marge deserved her thrashing, as did Marietta, & Draco, & Smith, & Snape, & Montague, & Dudley etc. > Lizzyben: > > - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is totally justified. > > Carol: > But it isn't, as Harry learns. McGonagall is *wrong* in her judgment > of Snape and Slughorn and Slytherin in general, as the reader learns > through "The Prince's Tale. I don't like the way that McGonagall judges the whole House by one > students' action or the way that she assumes that any of the older > Slytherins who choose to fight will fight for Voldemort, either. We don't see her changing her view, but she is present for > Harry's vindication of Snape and for Slughorn's participation in the > battle. But we, > the readers, can see that she is wrong. Not a single Slytherin student > fights for Voldemort (Voldie is lying to Lucius), and Draco stops > Crabbe from killing or Crucioing Harry. lizzyben: Then why do most readers seem to think she was right about Slytherin students? Why do we think that they did abandon Hogwarts & go to Voldemort's side? If we *weren't* supposed to think that, why would JKR make it so unclear? Carol: > The point is, most of the characters, including Harry until his > epiphany, judge by appearances. We can't judge Slytherin by McGonagall's words and actions. Her view is not so far removed from Aberforth Dumbledore's idea that the "good" side should hold a few Slytherins hostage. lizzyben: OK, don't listen to what McGonagall says, or what Aberforth says, or what Hagrid says, because even though these "good guys" express these ideas, we should know that they are actually bad ideas, even though the text never actually says so. But at a certain point, if we're ignoring the message of most of the leaders, aren't we in fact ignoring the actual message & creating our own individual intepretation? Because the text seems to say that we *can* judge by appearances when it comes to Slytherins 99.9% of the time - they're no good. Carol: > JKR has been withholding information until the last book. Only when > all the facts are in can Harry understand that Slytherin does not > equal Death Eater and even Death Eaters can be redeemed. And once > Harry understands, the narrator ceases to be unreliable. No more > comments about Snape as the man Harry hated. No more assertions that > Dumbledore betrayed Harry. Instead we get Harry telling Ron and > hermione the truth about both of them (admittedly, offpage) and naming > his second son for two flawed but brilliant headmasters--and it's the > Slytherin who's praised for his courage. lizzyben: We've had 7 books knocking us over the head w/one message, and when that message is reversed in any way, it happens off-screen. Off- page, and we don't have to see the reasoning that makes Harry come to that conclusion. IMHO, one off-page conversion isn't enough to reverse 1000+ pages of on-page condemnation. > Lizzyben: > > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it. > > Carol: > We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the Gryffindor > bullies. "The Prince's Tale" restates Harry's discomfort knowing that > his father and godfather were indeed arrogant, bullying "toerags." And > I think we're supposed to see that the Gryffindors' treatment of > Slytherins (and the Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than > Draco's treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at the QWC. > Harry's Crucio on Carrow puts him on the same level, briefly, as > Bellatrix Lestrange. lizzyben: But how do you know that we're supposed to see that? You don't have to admire James or Sirius, but I do think that we're supposed to. They're Gryffindors, after all, they're brave, they fought LV, they're heros, etc. Their actions are presented as youthful hijinks, quite different from the Dark magic Snape engages in, quite different from the horrible things Dudley & Draco do. Dudley & Draco deserve some payback; James & Sirus do not. And even though these parallels exist between the way the bad guys treat people & the way the good guys treat people, they seem to be entirely coincidental. I *don't* think we're supposed to see it as the same - intent is everything, & good guys can do bad things because they're so good. My proof? HBP Ginny hexed anyone who annoyed her, bullied Zacharias Smith, made fun of Fleur, lashed out at Hermione, etc. And JKR described HBP!Ginny as "warm and compassionate." Okay... She says that Harry crucioed Carrow because he was defending someone "very good" against a "violent & murderous opponent". (Spitting at someone is a murder attempt?) So torturing him *was* pretty gallant. Marietta was simply a traitor, who deserved permenant scars. Meanwhile, she stated that she hopes she'd be "worthy" enough to be in Gryffindor, and was "shocked & disturbed" that *any* fan would identify w/Slytherins. Does that sound like she sees them the same, or would expect readers to? Carol: But once he sees Snape's memories, he changes > tactics. He ceases to seek revenge and instead, sacrifices himself as > an act of love. I doubt very much that he condones bullying on the > part of his children (teasing is another matter and an inevitable part > of childhood). We can hope for a > friendship between Albus Severus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy, in marked > contrast to the enmity between James Potter and Severus Snape or Harry. lizzyben: Carol, where's the canon? We can all come to conclusions about what we think Harry or Albus Severus would do in the future, but the epilogue & text is all we've got to go on. In the epilogue, good guy Ron is *still* talking about how he doesn't like Slyths & his daughter better not marry a pure-blood like Scorpius. James Jr. seems like a bully-in-training, tormenting his brother w/the threat of Slytherin damnation, etc. We can *hope* that they find friendship instead of enmity, but there's really no indication that'll happen. We can definitely take a message of tolerance & forgiveness if we want to, we can think that the Houses truly are meant to be equal, or that the new generation becomes closer, etc., but when it goes against the statements of the characters & the author herself, it starts to seem almost like a subversive interpretation. > Lizzyben: > > - Women are equals/ women are worthless > > Carol: > Women are worthless? It's Lily's sacrifice that saves Harry. Hermione > saves Harry from Bathilda!Nagini and from the DEs who arrive at Xeno > lovegood's house. her protective magic keeps HRH alive. lizzyben: Sorry, should've made that more clear. - Women are worthless outside of their traditional roles of mother, wife & helpmate. On the surface, there's this veneer of equality, w/the 2 female founders, etc. but within the books themselves, women seem to almost always only exist (or matter) in these roles. Mother love is indeed important & glorified w/Lily, Molly, Narcissa, etc. But there's an odd lack of any truly independent, single women; or any adult female characters at all from 18-40. Tonks started out that way, and quickly degenerated into a pathetic lovesick moper who couldn't do anything till she got her man. Ginny likewise spends most of her life obsessed w/getting her man - in DH, Harry mostly thinks about snogging her, not actually talking to her. Even Bellatrix reflects this in her own twisted way - everything she does, she does to help LV. Hermione is the "brightest witch of her age", but in DH she uses her intelligence to help Harry & Ron, not to persue her own causes (SPEW, etc.). In the epilogue, we don't see how she changed the world or made a difference, we just see that she got married to her man & had kids. Ginny got married to her man & had kids. It's like that's the best role a woman can hope for. I was looking at the cover of DH again, and realized that it has absolutely nothing to do w/the actual contents of the book. The cover shows Harry looking up at the sky, wandless, non- confrontational, reaching out for something, receptive & on the verge of enlightenment. The actual climax happens inside, when Harry confronts LV, & and uses a super-powerful wand gained w/force to beat him - he doesn't need to discover, receive or change anything to win. The surface cover has nothing to do w/the actual message - it's totally dissonant. Seems an apt metaphor for the series as a whole. lizzyben From nitalynx at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 16:48:22 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:48:22 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: <700201d40709130804u5ee49ffawab6fa383ed02a43e@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177021 Alla wrote: > > I did. There was no way of knowing for me that some of her classmates > would not carry that threat into action. Nita: So, you perceived Slytherins as a threat. Good - as I said, it's the only interpretation that makes the other students' actions acceptable to me. > Alla: > > Not Jen, but to me it is absolutely same thing as suggest to join > Voldemort, because accepting his ultimatum - giving him Harry, means > pretty much Voldemort wins to me anyways. > > So, yes, to me it is suggesting joining Voldemort. Nita: But what if Pansy honestly thinks Voldie will win one way or the other? Perhaps she's not as optimistic as Regulus :) Kemper wrote: > It was just one girl. Everyone else who stood wands drawn against her > didn't talk to the person next to them to see what they were going to > do. There was no conversation of a next step. Each one of them just > stood not knowing others would stand as well. They did not stand > against Pansy. They stood for Harry. Nita: Now, let's be realistic. It's not like every student was locked into a room alone and asked what ey would do in that situation. Perhaps the first ten or so expected to be the lone heroes, but as the wave of rising students grew larger, I don't think it was possible not to notice it and take a completely independent decision. The last ones to stand up (JRK notes that they were Ravenclaws - the second worst house, apparently) were more likely than not jumping on the bandwagon. And they did stand against Pansy: "[..] all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead". And then they pulled their wands out. > Kemper: > It is easy to see Pansy fearful and wanting to live. But by accepting > his ultimatum, she is actively joining Voldemort whether she suggested > aligning with him or not. Nita: Yeah, and if someone holds a gun to your teacher's head and tells you to sing, singing makes you eir accomplice. Or maybe not. How you can join a force without even aligning with it is beyond me. > Kemper: > You're right, they aren't verbally declaring support. They stand as > one, drawing their wands, non-verbally shouting their support of > Harry. It's like a more powerful 'thumbs up' to Harry. Nita: Yes, very powerful. Isn't it nice when a convenient object of hate pops up just in time for all the good kids to demonstrate their loyalty? It gives one such a warm fuzzy feeling of unity. It seems that many people know this, consciously or not, and that's why crowds often single out weaker individuals or groups as a symbol of the crowd's stronger outside opponents. By the way, I wasn't even arguing that drawing wands on the Slytherins (as in Alla's interpretation) was a terrible thing to do. Instead, I was objecting to Jen's suggestion that Slyths should have redeemed themselves by joining everyone else against Pansy. Three against one is one thing, but everyone against one? Ugh. I wonder how JKR would have resolved the scene if she wasn't allowed to use this turn of events. Apparently, Harry was going to say something. What do you think he would've said, and would the effect be as powerful? :) Nita, wishing that someone had restricted JKR's wish-fulfilment tendencies just a bit ;) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 17:27:33 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 17:27:33 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177022 > Alla wrote: > > > > I did. There was no way of knowing for me that some of her classmates > > would not carry that threat into action. > > Nita: > > So, you perceived Slytherins as a threat. Good - as I said, it's the > only interpretation that makes the other students' actions acceptable > to me. Alla: Eh, just to clarify. Only *after* what Pansy said. Meaning threat in a sense that Slytherins will support her and carry that threat out - submit Harry to Voldemort. It can be done easy IMO via magic - portkey, etc. Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 18:55:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:55:57 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177023 --- "Carol" wrote: > ... > > Lizzyben: > > - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that > > matters - bad Slytherin blood will out, pure > > Gryffindor blood will save. > > Carol: > There's no such thing as "pure Gryffindor blood." > Hermione and Lily are Muggleborns sorted into > Gryffindor. It's Harry's and Lily's self-sacrifice, > two acts of love on different scales, that have the > power of ancient magic. > > ... > > I agree that the message that blood doesn't matter > is rather garbled. Hagrid thinks that the Malfoys > have "bad blood" and he actually says that blood is > important with regard to his half-brother, Grawp, > .... And the power of Harry's blood in Voldemort has > nothing to do with him or with Gryffindor. It has to > do with the power of love via Lily's self-sacrifice, > the same power that protects Harry from Voldemort as > long as he's with Petunia, no Gryffindor and not even > a witch. Her blood has power because it's Lily's blood, > which has the power of love. ... > bboyminn: While I generally agree with most of Carol's comments, I have to take one teeny tiny acception to her references the 'blood garble'. Again we have to consider context. Not all references to blood are references to the SAME blood, or the same aspect of or concept of blood. I think Hagrid's references to 'bad blood' and his reference to blood relative to his brother Grawp (does that count as a Tom Swifty?) are in a completely different and unrelated context relative to references to Pure-Blood and all that is associated with it. In the first instance, Hagrid is simply saying that the Malfoys are annoying trouble makers; seems fair enough to me. In the second reference, he is talking about family, and how important it is. Neither of those is a reference to or a slight against 'Pure-Blood'. I think the books message relative, not to 'Pure-Blood' but to the 'Pure-Blood is Superior' belief is crystal clear. 'It matters not how you are born, but what you grow to be'; slightly misquoting Dumbledore. To summaries, if you think you can stand it, let me say that...there is Blood and there is blood, the two not necessarily being the same. > Lizzyben: > > - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is > > totally justified. > > Carol: > But it isn't, as Harry learns. McGonagall is *wrong* > in her judgment of Snape and Slughorn and Slytherin in > general, .... Again, Harry publicly vindicates Snape, > he names his second son after two headmasters,..., and > he and Draco become, ..., at least not enemies. He > considers Draco's life worth saving. A Slytherin, > Regulus Black, becomes the rallying cry for the house- > elves, .... > > I don't like the way that McGonagall judges the whole > House by one students' action or the way that she > assumes that any of the older Slytherins who choose to > fight will fight for Voldemort, either. ... > bboyminn: Just a few comments on McGonagall's action near the end of the book in the Great Hall scene. She is not ruling against Slytherins in general, she is ruling against specific actions by Slytherin in the moment. The moment provides HUGE context to her actions. One Slytherin jumps up and says, 'there Harry, someone grab him', and no Slytherin protests, no Slytherin stand and points his wand at Pansy. No Slytherin in our line of sight, shows any indication that they don't agree. Naturally, McGonagall is going to order them all out. This is battle, or about to be, and battle is no place for fence sitter, it is no place for people whose allegiances aren't clear. However, if a few Slytherins had hung back and approach McGonagall and swore they would defend Hogwarts against Voldemort, I think she would have let them stay. What happened is not a sign of prejudice against Slytherins, but a direct response to both the action and non-action of Slytherins in the moment. Again, context matter very very much. > > Lizzyben: > > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it. > > Carol: > We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the > Gryffindor bullies. ...indeed arrogant, bullying > "toerags." And I think we're supposed to see that > the Gryffindors' treatment of Slytherins (and the > Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than Draco's > treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at > the QWC. bboyminn: While I'm with you in general Carol, I'm not sure I can agree with the examples you gave. There is a huge difference between Harry and Draco as representatives of their Houses. Draco, as I have said, is an instigator; he is going to consciously and willfully cause trouble for others. Harry, on the other hand, if not provoked, is not going to cause or seek out trouble. He like a quiet life. That makes them very very different. In psychological terms, perhaps it is the difference between Active Agressive and Passive Agressive. Draco is Active, he is willfully causing trouble. In the Dudley/Toffee incident, the twins are passive. Fred simply drops a candy. If Dudley had any self-restraint, or common sense, he would have never ate it. True we know that Fred planned it that way. But still Dudley has to accept a substantial portion of the blame, because, the terrible frightening result was caused by his own action. Let's remember that these Toffees were trick sweets, the Twins intended to sell them to their friends. I simply can't put a joke into the same category as the DE action at the World Cup which I will address next. Though, I will admit that what passes for a joke in the wizard world is much more extreme when it presents itself in the muggle world. And there was a subversive element of vicousness to the joke. What if Dudley has stashed the candy and hadn't eaten it until he went to bed? That could have been disastrous. Dudley was lucky that Mr. Weasley was there to help him. But if no wizard had been around, what would Dudley have done? Though I do think the Ton-Tongue spell was likely self-limiting, just as the Canary Cream was; in time, the ton tongue would have just gone away on its own. I simply can't see the Twins creating murderous jokes. As to the DE at the World Cup, that is a separate and incomparable action. Completely out of the league of the Twins 'joke'. The DE's action were wholly cruel, spiteful, vindictive, and physically dangerous; they were just plain MEAN. No one could possibly put Ton- Tongue Toffee in the same league as the DE's actions at the World Cup. > Carol: > > Harry's Crucio on Carrow puts him on the same level, > briefly, as Bellatrix Lestrange. > bboyminn: I say it does not. It puts Harry on the wrong side in the moment and in that context, but he is not even remotely close to the cruel and vicious Lestrange or Carrow. Bella takes joy in extended vicious and cruel use of the Cruciatus Curse. Harry on the other hand sustains it for a matter of a very few short seconds(1 to 3 seconds at most), and despite his sarcastic comment, I don't think Harry takes joy in it. I think he reacted in momentary anger against a man who was supremely vicious and unconscionable. I simply don't see how once extremely short incident puts Harry in the same category as the habitually cruel Bella. Momentary anger and laps of judgment in no way equates to the sustained cruelty of Bella or Carrows. Just a few minor comments. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 19:20:36 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:20:36 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <46E8B3C5.1040705@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177024 Bart wrote: > > First of all, while the canon is kind of self-contradictory on this, there APPEAR to be about 10 students in each house in each class (about 40 per year, about 280 students in the school). > Random832 responded" > Whoa, there. This is what happens when everyone's so obsessed with the numbers - There are 10 students for each house in Harry's year *that JKR has defined* - backgrounds, personalities, etc (even that haven't appeared on her page, it's all presumably in her notes given the list we've seen) - it's a sketch of the student body, a way for her to model the reactions of the larger group. It's a microcosm. > > Would we honestly expect her to come up with so much as names for all of a larger student body? This assumption that because she's only got 40 characters on the class list, that there's only 40 students in harry's year, is unfair - it's as if saying "You didn't make a longer list, so you're not _allowed_ to say that there's thousands of students" Carol responds: Actually, Bart is right. Although JKR has only "defined" eight of the ten (two of the Gryffindor girls in Harry's year remain unnamed), canon clearly indicates ten Gryffindors, ten Slytherins, and ten Hufflepuffs in Harry's year until OoP, when there are suddenly about thirty students in Harry's DADA class, which, nevertheless, still appears to consist solely of Gryffindors. We can't be sure about the Ravenclaws because Harry shares no classes with them, but the Sorting Hat "quarters" the students every year, and there's no reason to suppose that Ravenclaw would not have the same number of students as all the others. Here's the relevant canon (which has no doubt been presented at least a dozen times before): First flying lesson, Gryffindors and Slytherins together: "the Slytherins were already there, and so were twenty broomsticks lying on in neat lines on the ground" (SS Am. ed. 146). That's twenty broomsticks (should it be "brooms"?) for twenty students, ten each from Gryffindor and Slytherin. Herbology, second year, Gryffindors and Hufflepuffs together: "About twenty pairs of different colored earmuffs were lying on the bench" (CoS Am. ed. 91). That would be ten for the Gryffindors, ten or "about" ten for the Hufflepuffs, and one, the fluffy pink ones, for Professor Sprout. In PoA, we have the Boggart lesson (Gryffindors only), in which everyone except Harry and Hermione gets to fight the Boggart, and eight Boggarts, not counting Lupin's "orb" that he turns into a cockroach, are specifically identified (PoA Am. ed. 135-39). If we count the students named in the Sorting Hat ceremony, we get three specifically named as Hufflepuffs, three as Ravenclaws, seven as Gryffindors, five (counting Crabbe and Goyle) as Slytherins, and seven not identified. Of the seven, we can place two in Slytherin, one in Gryffindor, and one in Ravenclaw. That isn't all of the first-years, of course, but it's most of them. There aren't many gaps in the ceremony, and the groups of students called for their OWLs in OoP contain no new names except Anthony Goldstein (whom we've already met in the DA) and Daphne Greengrass (OoP Am ed. 121), which suggests to me that JKR is filling in the gap between Justin Finch-Fletchley and Hermione Granger and part of a larger gap between Hermione Granger and Neville Longbottom in the Sorting ceremony. Harry's group includes Pansy Parkinson and the Patil twins: Sally-Anne Perks (SS 713) gets left out. At any rate, I think it's clear that Harry's year contains either exactly forty students or very close to that number. His father's class must have been even smaller, with only four Gryffindor boys. JKR tries to increase the number as of OoP, and somehow manages to have more people attending one of the Quidditch matches (I forget which book) and the Yule Ball than attend the whole school if the other classes are the same size as Harry's, but 280 students (40 per year) is not just an assumption. For Harry's year, at least, 40 students is as close as we can get to canon. Then again, JKR tells us that in SS/PS that three students are left to be Sorted, and those "three" students turn out to be Dean Thomas, Lisa Turpin, Ron Weasley, and Blaise Zabini (122), so we're presented quite early on with evidence that JKR can't count the fingers on one hand. Carol, noting that she also can't remember whether the sorting Stool has three legs or four From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 13 19:26:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:26:33 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in the Box? Message-ID: <30780538.1189711593518.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177025 From: Laura Lynn Walsh >I would like to find out if any of the Hogwarts teachers had married >or had children. Bart: Professor Lupin did both. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Thu Sep 13 19:45:59 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 19:45:59 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177026 > Nita: > > McG: So, there's going to be a battle... > Voldie: Not necessarily. Give me Potter and I'll leave you alone and > give you stuff! > Everyone: *stares at Harry* > Pansy (apparently a bit slow on the uptake): "But he's there! Potter's > _there_! Someone grab him!" > Harry (even slower than Pansy): *(evidently) expects people to do as > she says, or something* > Gryffs, Puffs and Claws: *rise and draw wands on Pansy* > Harry: *is "awestruck and overwhelmed"* Jen: Hehe, that's pretty good. It works for me except the part about drawing wands *on Pansy*. More about that part below. Nita: > I mean, honestly, did anyone perceive Pansy as an effective threat? > She wasn't even trying to *do* anything! As the scene goes, you can > sort of read it as the Good houses taking a defensive stance just in > case the Slyths decide to Accio Harry carry him out of the castle. > Understandable. However, if the Slyths joined them, it would be *a > few hundred people* drawing wands on *one* girl for something she > said. > And would that really make the Slyths good? Or would people argue > that they sided with the likely winner (3 houses vs Pansy - not > hard to decide) to save their own skins? I think making a scapegoat > out of their classmate to impress McG and others would have been > awful of them. I'm glad they stuck by her, despite her bad social > awareness, selfish thinking and big mouth. Jen: I don't read it as Pansy being a threat so much as her words having meaning for the story. Voldemort's basically said 'turn over Harry or I'll kill you all' ("your efforts are futile. You cannot fight me. I do not want to kill you.") Pansy says 'we should turn over Harry.' The other kids stand up in front of Harry and pull wands which read to me as: 'nope, we're not turning over Harry, we're choosing to fight.' It's not literally about Pansy in that moment so much as her representing a choice. Nita: > You call it "declaring allegiance", in the Good Guys vs Voldemort > sense, I suppose. And if the three other houses were drawing their > wands on Voldie, I would agree with you wholeheartedly. But they > weren't. It was just one girl, calling for an action they wouldn't > take anyway. > Not only the stakes are higher, but the others aren't toasting, or > verbally declaring their support of Harry, or even just standing > around him. They are *drawing wands* on the Slyths' classmate. Jen: That *is* how the scene reads to me though, drawing wands to fight Voldemort. I mean, they can't even tell where his voice is coming from, it sounds like it's almost issuing from the 'walls themselves,' so it's not like they are literally drawing wands and pointing them at Voldemort, but they aren't pointing them at Pansy either. The text doesn't say the students drew wands and held them in attack position pointed at Pansy's face. All the students stand, table by table, with their backs to Harry, facing the Slytherin table and looking toward Pansy. Only after every student at every table is standing do wands start to emerge 'pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves.' I read that part as symbolic of the intent to fight rather than surrender, a non-verbal choice to Voldemort's ultimatum. There was nothing in that scene to make me think the point was to attack Pansy since she's one person standing there screaming and not acting. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Sep 13 20:12:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:12:44 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? - Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177027 > bboyminn: > Now, I think, the lack of satisfaction in many > people's minds is because they didn't get a long > Shakespearian monolog in which Draco renounces his > past and embraces his new better future. An endless > dramatic soliloquy in which Draco spells out the > error of his ways and professes his new enlightened > future. > > The problem is, that only happens in Shakespeare and > other such pretentious and overwrought drama. In real > life, these accompanying thoughts and revelations > happen on the inside. Magpie: Yes! That is totally what I wanted. I only thought I saw the change in Draco perfectly well and found it personally unsatisfyingly limited. And I did totally forget how soliloquies only happen in pretentious and overwrought dramas like Shakespeare's plays from hundreds of years ago. Are you sure? I could have sworn that The Bourne Ultimatum had several endless monologues where Jason Bourne explained to us what he was thinking. He must have, otherwise I obviously wouldn't have enjoyed the movie. But then, what do I know? I didn't even know Shakespeare was pretentious and overwrought. I thought he was a talented guy writing in the style of his times for a different medium who's still effective today. You know what JKR really needed, though, along with the few times she actually does have characters make speeches (the non-pretentious kind), was a Greek chorus. They could just come out and sing all the stuff for dim folks like me who can't follow modern literary conventions and miss all the stuff happening on the inside. The chorus could explain in iambic pentameter how in HBP even though everybody's saying Voldemort is punishing Lucius etc., that Draco really went to him with this plan etc. etc. etc. Or how Slytherin is actually much better than they seem on the outside. Or the good guys are problematic. Or how Harry and Draco ran off and got married (on the inside). -m (grateful for the Internet, where she can find people to tell her what she thinks and why!) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 20:37:26 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:37:26 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? - Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177030 bboyminn wrote: > > I'm not really a Draco fan, but at the same time I do find him a fascinating character, not so much because of what I see on the page, but more so because of what I imagine off page and in Draco's internal landscape. I do see a great deal of change in Draco in the book. The problem is, we see the turmoil the precedes change, but never the actual moment of revelation where Draco morphs. > > In the beginning Draco is idealistic. He has a fantasy version of how he perceives the world and his place in it. By the end, Draco is being crushed by the cold realities of life and of his beliefs. > Suddenly the full realization of what it means to serve Voldemort is upon him, and the realization grows with ever increasing intensity from that point on through the next two books. Now that Draco sees it is not all standing on balconies, and now sees what it means to take and hold power over the wizard and muggle world, being a Death Eater is not so appealing. > > Now, I think, the lack of satisfaction in many people's minds is because they didn't get a long Shakespearian monolog in which Draco renounces his past and embraces his new better future. An endless dramatic soliloquy in which Draco spells out the error of his ways and professes his new enlightened future. > > The problem is, that only happens in Shakespeare and other such pretentious and overwrought drama. In real life, these accompanying thoughts and revelations happen on the inside. I think we see Draco at the peak of his revelation at the end of the last standard chapters in the last book. Then the actual transition occurs off page, and 19 years later we see a much humbler and transformed Draco. Draco has changed, he is not the arrogant self-important bully we see in the beginning. He clearly has had a revelation, even if the only evidence we have is a polite nod to Harry. Carol responds: "Pretentious and overwrought drama"? That's an interesting way to refer to the greatest dramatist of all time. However, I don't want to argue since, to some extent, I agree with you. I think what we're dealing with here is a difference in genre conventions (and a difference in taste between our era and Shakespeare's). Shakespearean drama of necessity uses monologue to reveal thoughts and motivations; in fiction (written rather than performed, read rather than viewed), we can read the characters' thoughts, motivations, and perceptions on the page. In the HP books specifically, we're usually limited to Harry's not always reliable point of view. Only a few chapters (e.g., "Spinner's End" in HBP) use a pov resembling that in a drama, with the characters seen only from the outside and their thoughts are concealed from the reader (and each other), no one is going to make a Shakespeare-style soliloquy (which, in any case, occurs when the character is alone onstage). JKR never allows us into Draco's head, any more than she allows us into Snape's. We don't even get any "Spinner's End"-style chapters for him until "The Dark Lord Rising" in DH, in which we see both Snape and Draco but Harry doesn't. Most of the time, we see Draco (as we do Snape) through Harry's eyes. We can catch details that he misses (easy enough to do given that he frequently overlooks or misinterprets the details), but still, Draco is off-page most of the time, either because he's nowhere near Harry or because what he's doing or saying isn't important to the story. We can contrast for ourselves the difference between his threats to Borgin in "Draco's Detour," along with his boasting that the Dark Lord has entrusted him with an important mission in "The Slug Club," and his fears and tears in "Sectumsempra" and slightly lowered wand in "The Lightning-Struck Tower." We can also compare and contrast our own reactions with Harry's, especially during repeated readings. Draco's behavior in DH is an extension of his behavior on the tower. The blustering and defiance are gone; the hesitation and fear remain. He is clearly disillusioned, to say the least, but he's still almost powerless to act. Only when we contrast his behavior with his father's willingness to give Harry to Voldemort in return for a restoration of the Dark Lord's favor can we see how far Draco has come. Whether Harry sees it, too, is unclear because he's understandably concerned with his own predicament and doesn't hesitate to snatch three wands from the injured Draco's hand, but I think his willingness to save Draco's life later does indicate a changed perception of him--more pity and less contempt than he felt at the end of OoP. Harry, of course, doesn't speak these thoughts aloud. He's not very introspective and is only gradually learning to interpret his own emotions, and he's certainly not going to say to Ron and Hermione, "Hey, have you noticed that Draco Malfoy is in a tight spot and not as obnoxious as he used to be? Maybe we should feel sorry for him instead of hating him." And yet that seems to sum up his perception, and, at the same time to sum up Draco's actual situation. At any rate, the cardinal rule of modern fiction is "Show, don't tell." Neither Draco nor Harry nor the narrator is going to announce to the reader how we should perceive Draco. Even Harry's own perceptions must be inferred by his altered behavior toward Draco. (The same, of course, is true for Harry's altered perception of Snape, except that we can infer them from his public vindication of Snape and the name he gives his second son.) Carol, who thinks that observing Draco's (and Snape's) suffering at firsthand has led Harry to a new understanding and tolerance of Slytherin in general reflecting JKR's own view of that House and those characters From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 13 20:44:52 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 16:44:52 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? Message-ID: <14384272.1189716292376.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177031 From: Random832 >> Random 832 wrote: >>> it's as if saying "You didn't make a longer list, so >>> you're not _allowed_ to say that there's thousands of students" >> >> Potioncat: >> As Bart said, canon is contradictory on the numbers. > >Random832: >That would be true, if there canon stating "40 students in Harry's >year". There simply is not. You are correct. It does not. It also does not say that Lily Potter ever became pregnant. Should we conclude that Harry was adopted? Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 21:03:02 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:03:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177032 lizzyben wrote: > > Carol, where's the canon? We can all come to conclusions about > what we think Harry or Albus Severus would do in the future, but the > epilogue & text is all we've got to go on. In the epilogue, good guy > Ron is *still* talking about how he doesn't like Slyths & his > daughter better not marry a pure-blood like Scorpius. James Jr. > seems like a bully-in-training, tormenting his brother w/the threat > of Slytherin damnation, etc. We can *hope* that they find friendship > instead of enmity, but there's really no indication that'll happen. Carol responds: Happy to oblige. James Potter to Sirius black at age eleven: "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" (DH Am. ed. 670)), virtually the same words that Draco Malfoy says to Harry regarding Hufflepuff in SS/PS. Harry Potter at 37 to Albus *Severus* Potter, age eleven, in response to "what if I'm in Slytherin?": "--then Slytherin House will have gained and excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us" (758). It *doesn't matter* to his Gryffindor parents whether he's placed in Gryffindor or not. It's okay to be in Slytherin, the house to which the bravest man Harry ever knew belonged. Regarding Scorpius Malfoy, it's Ron, not Harry, who teasingly tells his daughter to beat Scorpius in every test and then jokes about Rosie marrying him--hardly a topic that would have come up regarding Draco and Hermione. And Hermione says, "Ron, for heaven's sake. don't try to turn them [Scorpius and Rosie] against each other before they've even started school!" (756). Sounds like quite a change to me. Carol, who thinks it's also significant that James Potter starts out as a bully and that we're supposed to contrast his lifelong prejudice against Slytherin with the tolerance of his enlightened son From starview316 at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 13 21:26:25 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:26:25 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177033 > Magpie: > ::shrug:: Not to me. I thought Harry just saved his life and so > Dudley comically then thought he was cool and made him tea. I can't > even imagine Dudley puzzling out something as significant as "Where > I always supposed him to be wimpy was brave, not selfish but > selfless, not weak but strong, not worthless but full of worth! My > parents were wrong, I was wrong etc." I think he just always saw > Harry as some kid in the house to beat up and barely thought about > him, and then he saved his life and was cool. Cute moment, not that > big of a deal imo. I don't feel like Dudley's developed enough to > really support it as a huge moment showing me how People Can Change > in really fundamental ways that rock Harry's world. Amy: I agree that in essentials, most of the characters in HP stay the same (in fact, I also agree that it adds to the appeal of the story); usually, like in the case of Snape, it's just that knowing them better (their motivations and whatnot) helps to make other characters understand them better. I don't know if I agree that Dudley didn't change throughout the story, though, he actually seems like one of the exceptions. I really don't think it was a case of his just suddenly thinking that Harry was cool, since he saved his life -- remember that he actually DID blame Harry for the attack initially, when Petunia and Vernon asked what had happened. I've tried, but I really can't see the Dudley in DH as the same one from PS; if nothing else, I can't imagine PS! Dudley, or many of his later incarnations, doing anything like making tea for someone, no matter how cool he thought they were. From nitalynx at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 22:12:06 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:12:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177034 > Jen: Hehe, that's pretty good. It works for me except the part about > drawing wands *on Pansy*. More about that part below. Nita: Thanks! :) > Jen: I don't read it as Pansy being a threat so much as her words > having meaning for the story. Voldemort's basically said 'turn over > Harry or I'll kill you all' ("your efforts are futile. You cannot > fight me. I do not want to kill you.") Pansy says 'we should turn > over Harry.' The other kids stand up in front of Harry and pull > wands which read to me as: 'nope, we're not turning over Harry, we're > choosing to fight.' It's not literally about Pansy in that moment so > much as her representing a choice. > Jen: That *is* how the scene reads to me though, drawing wands to > fight Voldemort. I mean, they can't even tell where his voice is > coming from, it sounds like it's almost issuing from the 'walls > themselves,' so it's not like they are literally drawing wands and > pointing them at Voldemort, but they aren't pointing them at Pansy > either. The text doesn't say the students drew wands and held them > in attack position pointed at Pansy's face. All the students stand, > table by table, with their backs to Harry, facing the Slytherin table > and looking toward Pansy. Only after every student at every table is > standing do wands start to emerge 'pulled from beneath cloaks and > from under sleeves.' I read that part as symbolic of the intent to > fight rather than surrender, a non-verbal choice to Voldemort's > ultimatum. There was nothing in that scene to make me think the > point was to attack Pansy since she's one person standing there > screaming and not acting. Nita: Ohh, that's interesting. I hadn't even considered not seeing the Decent People vs Pansy (+ the Slyths) angle as important, and now I wonder why. Perhaps just because it's such a powerful visual that somehow reminds me of impending mob justice? But still, JKR's choice to demonstrate the good kids' willingness to fight Voldemort using Pansy as a catalyst and symbol disturbs me. Like Lizzyben said, in real life such situations often end very badly, even if the people involved are perfectly decent. And the frightening potential of the scene goes completely unacknowledged, as usual... I mean, I don't demand sociopsychological realism from every fantasy coming-of-age story, but the HP books *do* touch real social issues, don't they? The Nazi allusions were rather blatant, I'd say. But sometimes it seems like they were just a convenient shorthand for extreme badness in a wish-fulfilment story. Meh. I don't know what to think anymore. Nita, still confused about JKR's intentions and methods, but happy to see less depressing interpretations From leahstill at hotmail.com Thu Sep 13 22:27:51 2007 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:27:51 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177035 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > We can *hope* that they find friendship > > instead of enmity, but there's really no indication that'll happen. > > > Carol responds: > Happy to oblige. > > James Potter to Sirius black at age eleven: "Who wants to be in > Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" (DH Am. ed. 670)), > virtually the same words that Draco Malfoy says to Harry regarding > Hufflepuff in SS/PS. > > Harry Potter at 37 to Albus *Severus* Potter, age eleven, in response > to "what if I'm in Slytherin?": > > "--then Slytherin House will have gained and excellent student, won't > it? It doesn't matter to us" (758). > > It *doesn't matter* to his Gryffindor parents whether he's placed in > Gryffindor or not. It's okay to be in Slytherin, the house to which > the bravest man Harry ever knew belonged. Leah: So far, so good, and if it had been left there, I would agree with you. But, Harry goes on to say that if it matters to Albus Severus he can choose to be in Gryffindor, which seems to me to undermine the previous statement. What's the child going to choose - the house of a brave dead man who is only a name to the boy, the house about which his brother has been teasing him unmercifully all the way to Kings Cross and for some time before, or the house of his parents, and all his grandparents, and his older brother? I know where my money would go and it's not on the snake. Gryffindor is this child's 'natural' house, and let's face it, Dumbledore has implied that it should have been the house of the man who makes Slytherin ok in Harry's eyes. In fact, Slytherin is tolerated in as much as it has produced a man who displayed to an exemplary level a 'natural' Gryffindor characteristic. To me it comes over as telling a child that it will still be loved if it does badly in important exams, and that X who was a wonderful person, also did badly in exams, but that the child's revised hard etc and will probably do very well. > Carol, who thinks it's also significant that James Potter starts out > as a bully and that we're supposed to contrast his lifelong prejudice > against Slytherin with the tolerance of his enlightened son Leah: Yes, there's been some progress, but really just enough for Harry to tolerate a son in Slytherin, for very personal reasons. Is that as much as can be expected? Slytherin gets an ok(ish) and Snape gets an aside in a word of reassurance to a scared child. Do we see Harry putting a stop to his elder's son's teasing, giving James Jnr (who sounds in all ways a chip off the old block) any dressing down about the bravest man Harry ever knew? No, we don't. I get this disconnect throughout DH, as if the author feels she ought to write something in a particular way but quite can't believe it, as if the moral point has been made, but the reality is something else, and it's the reality which is good. To diverge slightly, the treatment of James is a case in point. There's nothing in DH that removes the 'bully' stigma from James. Instead, 'The Prince's Tale' strongly reinforces it,when we see James and Sirius being vile to a boy whose only fault, as they can see it, is wanting to be sorted into Slytherin, on the mistaken information that it's the house for brains. Yet, a few pages later, there are James and Sirius accompanying Harry on his death march, and later, Harry's eldest son, (who might well have been his only son) bears James' name. I understand the reality of Harry wanting to be with his father, to acknowledge his father, however flawed, but to me there's no resolution of the dichotomy inherent in the two views. Leah > From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 13 22:31:01 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:31:01 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <30780538.1189711593518.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <30780538.1189711593518.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177036 On 2007, Sep 13, , at 11:26, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > From: Laura Lynn Walsh >> I would like to find out if any of the Hogwarts teachers had married >> or had children. > > Bart: > Professor Lupin did both. > > Bart But only after he had resigned from being a Hogwarts teacher. Does teaching at Hogwarts require celibacy? Are spouses and/or children of Hogwarts teachers hidden from view? Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From minorsocialite at yahoo.com Thu Sep 13 22:25:54 2007 From: minorsocialite at yahoo.com (Stephanie) Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2007 22:25:54 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? - Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177037 > bboyminn wrote: > > > > > > The problem is, that only happens in Shakespeare and other such > pretentious and overwrought drama. In real life, these accompanying > thoughts and revelations happen on the inside. I think we see Draco at > the peak of his revelation at the end of the last standard chapters in > we have is a polite nod to Harry. Stephanie responds~ I love it! Shakespeare---like any other *mortal* writer---could be a bit over the top at times, couldn't he? Just goes to prove, one man's sacred cow is another man's beef. Anyhoo, count me in the intrigued by Draco camp. Both my son (11 years old) and I were struck by the entire Malfoy family, mostly because, for us, at least, they WERE very "real" Draco never sounded it out letter by letter, and he certainly never did the whole "fearless & searching moral inventory" turnaround speech but he changed with his experiences, and that, for the most part is what the majority of us do. I saw Draco's upbringing very clearly in many of the things he did, both the good and the bad. My son is the one who shrugged and laughed when Draco remained in the hail of fire to attempt to save Crabbe and Goyle. "Well, with a mother like that, of course he'd learn to be protective of his people" is what Pete said. Pete also pointed out that Narcissa giving Draco her wand was exactly what I would do for him were he in a situation where the wand could mean the difference between life and death. I think that Draco, like most children, only saw the glamour of being one of the "chosen race". I have no doubt whatsoever that both his father, with pride of blood, and his mother with her adoration, told him from day one that he, Draco Malfoy was crowning glory and pride of all his ancestors, and that as one of nature's nobility, having all the graces, he was entitled to the hightest position the wizarding world had to offer. Draco probably thought he'd slip right into it. He saw no further than the end of his own wand, and the heroic pose he would strike when he subdued the barbarous hordes of mudbloods and muggles. I imagine he looked at it much the same as many look at the barbarous hordes of illegal aliens who take our jobs, bring their nasty traditions into our pristine world, and overburden us with their needs. I'm sure teaching remedial wizarding history for muggle borns seemed a waste of both time and funds to the Malfoys and their ilk. "Real" wizards were being shortchanged when quiddich pitches were not repaired due to funds funnelled into muggle studies and the like. No doubt Draco heard all of the "Send them back! Get rid of them! Filthy mudbloods!" talk and didn't think of the human cost of putting such thoughts into action. Any parent of a little boy can tell you that little boys will pretend to shoot guns and play war. They THINK that being the hero warrior is fun. Many a soldier can tell you that the reality of the thing is waaaay different. I think that's what Draco learned, and I think way back at Spinner's End Narcissa saw not only the physical, but the spiritual danger to Draco, and finagled any way she could to spare her son's soul being split up and ultimately lost by his becomming a cold killer. So, while the Malfoy clan's motivations were not the most attractive, if one looks at them as... "Securing the best life for me and mine, let others look after themselves." Most of us do that to one degree or another. I can't recall the post but someone once pointed out that the Malfoy's didn't have wands when they ran into the middle of the battle of Hogwarts screaming for Draco. I had never thought of it at the time, but that is true. Totally unable to join the fight for ANY side, they still ran into the middle of a war; and we know that Narcissa had WILLINGLY disarmed herself to keep her baby (and I reckon she would always see Draco as her "baby"---heh, poor, or maybe lucky Draco) It wasn't battle they cared about at that point, it was the boy's safety. I really admired JKR's willingness to not make tedious, paper cut out bad guys who were so lacking in any discernably human features that they were easy to dismiss. It just struck me that the Malfoy's seemed like the flip side of the Weasleys. Narcissa was ready to take down Bellatrix (her own blood) when Bellatrix was willing to sacrifice Draco, and Molly struck the killing blow when Bellatrix attempted to kill Ginny. So many differences but the single minded parental love was the same. From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 00:02:10 2007 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:02:10 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? - Change In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177038 > > bboyminn: > > The problem is, that only happens in Shakespeare and > > other such pretentious and overwrought drama. In real > > life, these accompanying thoughts and revelations > > happen on the inside. Goddlefrood: Is Harry Potter real life? I hadn't previously been aware. Thanks for clearing that up ;-) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 03:08:49 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:08:49 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177039 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Then again, JKR tells us that in SS/PS that three students are left to > be Sorted, and those "three" students turn out to be Dean Thomas, Lisa > Turpin, Ron Weasley, and Blaise Zabini (122), so we're presented quite > early on with evidence that JKR can't count the fingers on one hand. You know, Carol, this one maybe is not JKR's fault :-). I have both american and british editions of SS/PS, and Dean Thomas is only mentioned in the american edition, not in the british one. So originally there were really three kids left. I think that maybe american editors added Dean, but forgot to change the number from three to four :-). > Carol, noting that she also can't remember whether the sorting Stool > has three legs or four It has four legs in PS, but three legs in PoA and GoF :-). zanooda From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 14 03:09:41 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:09:41 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177040 > Nita: > Ohh, that's interesting. I hadn't even considered not seeing the > Decent People vs Pansy (+ the Slyths) angle as important, and now I > wonder why. Perhaps just because it's such a powerful visual that > somehow reminds me of impending mob justice? Jen: Yeah...but even reading the scene emphasizing a different angle didn't keep me from noticing JKR's choice there. I have a very distinct memory of being thrown out of the story in my first read- through of the Great Hall scene - 'Really? *None* of the Slytherins stood up? Why did JKR write the moment like that?' Mob violence wasn't a thought that occurred to me until reading the idea here, but I didn't/don't understand JKR's choice of having every Slytherin remain seated. Was it a character development problem since she mainly presented characters connected to DEs? Trouble conveying the idea via Harry? She honestly didn't think her Slytherin characters would fight Voldemort - why? That it would appear tokenish? (I rejected that one because there are other token- type characters on the good side who represent groups opposed to Voldemort, like Lupin, Hagrid and Grawp, Dobby, etc.) Nita: > But still, JKR's choice to demonstrate the good kids' willingness to > fight Voldemort using Pansy as a catalyst and symbol disturbs me. > Like Lizzyben said, in real life such situations often end very > badly, even if the people involved are perfectly decent. And the > frightening potential of the scene goes completely unacknowledged, > as usual... Jen: This is where McGonagall plugged into the scene for me, the acknowledgement that a bunch of kids standing around with wands in their hands in a tense situation wasn't a good idea. I realize others don't read it this way, but I honestly thought she was using pretty good conflict management skills when she told Pansy and the Slytherins to leave first. Nita: > I mean, I don't demand sociopsychological realism from every fantasy > coming-of-age story, but the HP books *do* touch real social issues, > don't they? The Nazi allusions were rather blatant, I'd say. But > sometimes it seems like they were just a convenient shorthand for > extreme badness in a wish-fulfilment story. Jen: I've read 'wish-fulfillment story' before and don't really understand what it refers to re: HP? From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 03:24:55 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:24:55 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <30780538.1189711593518.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177041 From: Laura Lynn Walsh > >I would like to find out if any of the Hogwarts teachers had married > >or had children. > > Bart: > Professor Lupin did both. > > Bart > Snape's Witch: Sorry, Bart, Lupin was a *former* teacher when he and Tonks got married. From jeopardy18 at comcast.net Fri Sep 14 03:30:46 2007 From: jeopardy18 at comcast.net (seanmulligan2000) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:30:46 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177042 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: > > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first > book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and > Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James > with the later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? > Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? seanmulligan: Maybe he matured as a result of the Whomping Willow incident. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 03:42:47 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:42:47 -0000 Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177043 Katie: > I have noticed that many of the same people who like Snape and find > him fascinating also like Draco and deem him a fascinating and > complex character. > > Now, I am a Snape fan, and I DO think he is one of the best > characters in the books. In fact, he reminds me of Falstaff, in that > he sort of grows out of the boundaries of his own story. > > However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that kind of > character. I think he's pretty stiff and one-note, actually. > So, I guess this is a plea to all those Draco fans - why? Why is he > so interesting? I'm not trying to be obnoxious - I really want to > understand the fascination. Especially since so many other Snape > fans seem to be Draco fans, as well. Thanks! Katie > Lisa: Good question, Katie! I've always wondered the same thing, and I guess you could call me a Snape fan too. Draco, from the time we lay eyes upon him until the time Harry meets up with him in the Room of Requirement and saves his life, has always been out for himself, above all. Lisa From witherwing at sbcglobal.net Fri Sep 14 03:50:38 2007 From: witherwing at sbcglobal.net (witherwings999) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 03:50:38 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <1586539.1189630508030.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177044 Perhaps in the box there is a draft of the letter Dumbledore wrote to Petunia, and left with Harry on the Dursley's doorstep... I would love to read it! And the letters between Hermione and Krum, too. -Witherwing, who has recently been digging through boxes of old letters. From smmiraq at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 08:14:52 2007 From: smmiraq at yahoo.com (sarah mohi) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 01:14:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Draco...Interesting? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <841022.96526.qm@web37512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177045 > Katie: > Now, I am a Snape fan, and I DO think he is one of the best > characters in the books. In fact, he reminds me of Falstaff, > in that he sort of grows out of the boundaries of his own > story. > However, I do not remotely feel that Draco is that kind of > character. I think he's pretty stiff and one-note, actually. Sarah: I'm not a Snape fan nor do I like Draco very much which is why I guess I can look at the subject objectively. Snape and Draco are both evolving characters. A reader's first impression of them is that they represent the dark arts at Hogwarts, yet threw out the books you begin to understand why they do the things they do ,and in the end I think everyone felt pity for them. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Sep 14 13:02:53 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:02:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's in the Box? - Numbers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177046 In a message dated 9/13/2007 10:14:26 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: It is unreasonable to assume every class in every year is exactly the same size. It is also unreasonable to assume that every House is exactly the same size. That may seem to be true in Harry's year, but Harry's class year does not define the world for all time. I agree. Also with a wizard war raging around the time of Harry's birth there was likely a drop in birth rate (of non Weasleys any way ;-D). Subsequently there might have been a significant baby boom in the years following Voldemort's first defeat (and probably the final defeat as well). Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nboja at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 12:39:22 2007 From: nboja at yahoo.com (nboja) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 12:39:22 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177047 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first > book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and > Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James > with the later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? > Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? > seanmulligan: > Maybe he matured as a result of the Whomping Willow incident. nboja: Maybe because they were head boy and girl, that is how they developed a relationship, because we know when she's talking to Snape under the tree she seems to not like James very much. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 14 13:47:16 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:47:16 -0000 Subject: Pettigrew and Marauders Re: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: <5280.1189698026158.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177048 > Bart: > The estimate of the student body only made it more likely that they were roommates; it still is a reasonable assumption even assuming that JKR math is at its usual levels. Potioncat: JKR herself jokes about her maths skills. She isn't realy thinking about whether the numbers work out. She's writing about relationships. I think Bart's first post about the Marauder dynamics is correct. Forget whether or not there were other Gryffindors---JKR doesn't write about them. She really hasn't considered how they would play into the story. (IMHO) In Harry's years we see the 5 roommates interacting. No other boys from their year come by or play into the story. The point isn't how many other boys are there---that can be up to the reader--the point is, for the story only these 5 (or 4 in a Marauders' years) exist. The group of four Marauders, as friends or companions or a gang fits very well. Look how it plays out in Harry's years: Ron, Harry and Hermione are a trio, Seamus and Dean are mates, Lavender and Parvati are friends and Neville is mostly on his own. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 14:16:06 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:16:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177049 > Jen: Yeah...but even reading the scene emphasizing a different angle > didn't keep me from noticing JKR's choice there. I have a very > distinct memory of being thrown out of the story in my first read- > through of the Great Hall scene - 'Really? *None* of the Slytherins > stood up? Why did JKR write the moment like that?' > Mob violence wasn't a thought that occurred to me until reading the > idea here, but I didn't/don't understand JKR's choice of having every > Slytherin remain seated. Was it a character development problem > since she mainly presented characters connected to DEs? Trouble > conveying the idea via Harry? She honestly didn't think her > Slytherin characters would fight Voldemort - why? That it would > appear tokenish? (I rejected that one because there are other token- > type characters on the good side who represent groups opposed to > Voldemort, like Lupin, Hagrid and Grawp, Dobby, etc.) > lizzyben: I can maybe offer one answer. In that scene, JKR wasn't interested in examining the roots of mob violence, the dangers of scapegoating, the need to balance security & protection for all the students. No, that scene was all about proving & *ranking* the virtue of each of the Houses. JKR doesn't care about math, but she wrote that scene w/mathematical precision - First, we are told in *exactly* which order each House raised their wands, then, exactly which order the Houses evacuated Hogwarts, finally, the exact ratio of students that stayed behind from each House to fight the Death Eaters. And unlike most of the math, these ratios & ranking are actually consistent: Slytherin are scum, Ravenclaws are sketchy (too independent), Hufflepuffs are loyal (but still duffers), and Gryffindors are the BEST, the Elect, the most noble & virtuous House. THAT's why she wrote that scene & that's why she had all the Houses gathered together in the Great Hall for this moment. This was the students' moment to choose & prove their worth. It comes back to Calvinist predestination - choices *show* your essential character & virtue, they don't change you. The Sorting Hat has already sorted the children based on their virtue, and their choices now will *show* their essential character & prove that the Sorting Hat was right. Slyths have bad character, & will prove that in a crunch time, Hufflepuffs & Ravenclaws are sort of meh, & they'll prove that, & Gryffindors are teh awsome Elect!!!! That's why JKR points out that all the Slytherins remained seated, while Gryfs rose first. What's the point of having a House for the damned if they'll act as good as the Elect? No, that scene was all about *proving* the worth of the noble Elect as opposed to the worthlessness of the damned. The soul scores are in: WAND RAISING - "The Gryffindors in front of him had risen and stood facing, not Harry, but the Slytherins. Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves. - Gryffindors stood up first to defend Harry from the Pansy menace, then Hufflepuff, then Ravenclaws, NO Slytherins. Defending Harry is a good thing, so we can judge & rank the Houses by how quickly they decided to do this. HOGWARTS LEAVING - "Thank you, Miss Parkinson." said Professor McGonagall in a clipped voice. "You will leave the Hall first with Mr. Filch. If the rest of your House could follow." Harry heard the grinding of the benches and then the sound of the Slytherins trooping out on the other side of the Hall. "Ravenclaws, follow on!" cried Professor McGonagall. Slowly the four tables emptied." - Slytherins leave first, then Ravenclaws, then Hufflepuffs, then Gryffindors. Leaving the battle is a bad thing, so can judge the Houses by the Order in which they abandon Hogwarts. We can also tell which Houses McGonegal doesn't like (Slyths, Ravenclaws), which is another reliable marker of their lack of virtue. STAYING FOR THE BATTLE - "The Slytherin table was completely deserted, but a number of older Ravenclaws remained seated while their fellows filed out; even more Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and half of Gryffindor remained in their seats, necessitating Professor McGonagall's descent from the teachers' platform to chivvy the underage on their way. " - NO Slytherins stayed behind, "a number" of Ravenclaws remained, "even more" Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and HALF of Gryffindor. (GO Gryfs!1!) Staying behind to fight the Death Eaters is a very good thing, because that shows that you are brave & noble - so we can judge & rank the Houses based on how many of their students chose to fight the Battle of Hogwarts. The students had the chance to make 2 important choices - stand up for Harry, and stay for the battle. Their choices in that moment *proved* their own virtue, and the relative virtue of their House. It's the Sorting all over again - except this time we are definitely *shown* which Houses are the best. We can judge the virtue of each House by just how quickly they're willing to stand up & raise their wands against Pansy (Ravenclaw lagged a few seconds behind, so they're worse than Hufflepuffs.) In practice, this means - "mob violence, yey! Torch the witch to prove your virtue!" If you don't immediately raise your weapon, you're considered less noble & courageous than the people that do. Your willingness to use violence against "the other" proves your worthiness to your society, and even to God. So, this scene is pretty horrifying in its implications. > Jen: This is where McGonagall plugged into the scene for me, the > acknowledgement that a bunch of kids standing around with wands in > their hands in a tense situation wasn't a good idea. I realize > others don't read it this way, but I honestly thought she was using > pretty good conflict management skills when she told Pansy and the > Slytherins to leave first. lizzyben: Since, IMHO, the potential for violence & massacre didn't even occur to JKR, I don't think this is what McGonagall was doing. She was recognizing the Slytherins' essential lack of worth & virtue, (proven by their choice to remain seated), and casting the reprobate out of the school (quite right, too!). lizzyben From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Sep 14 15:25:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:25:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just one little bitty question References: Message-ID: <00ab01c7f6e3$6ed217e0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 177050 >> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: >> I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first >> book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and >> Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James >> with the later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? >> Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? > >> seanmulligan: >> Maybe he matured as a result of the Whomping Willow incident. > > > nboja: > Maybe because they were head boy and girl, that is how they > developed a relationship, because we know when she's talking to Snape > under the tree she seems to not like James very much. Shelley: I think Dumbledore was realistic about who he chose as Head Boy and Girl- not in that he chose "perfect" kids (if the kids had to be perfect to get it, then practically no Slytherin would ever become Head Boy or Girl!), but kids who really had the chance to become someone once given a position of responsibility. I think Dumbledore or the headmaster at that time saw that James could be responsible when asked to, and making him a Prefect was one way to "ask him to behave", officially. Making him Head Boy, if that really was the case and not a case of Rowling messing up her details again, really would have been a way to further transform a kid who really liked to have too much fun into a child who shone when responsibility was heaped upon him. I think James really was a child who did better the more responsibility was thrust upon him. And I agree, if they were both Head Boy and Girl, then they would have spent some time together in those roles, and maybe that's how Lilly got to see the other side of James- that he could step up to the plate and be responsible, that he did care for others and not just about himself and having fun. And, maybe his idea of "fun" changed too, to become something that would never be done to harm others, as that prank a few years earlier could have. Maybe his idea of fun had matured too, so that he knew how to have a good time and still be responsible by his 6th and 7th years. From c_and_s_live at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 13:49:04 2007 From: c_and_s_live at yahoo.com (James Casey) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:49:04 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177051 I have been a fan since the first book. I have watched the stories develop from book to book. I have hung on every word I read! Now I need to vent and I chose this forum to do so in. This is, after all, a place for and of opinion. That being said... I will just chose a place and go from there. There may not be any noticable order and may bounce from topic to topic. Love the books. Hate the movies. In the books we are lead to another world. One of witches and wizards that has little bearing on our own. It makes you feel like a child again. Your in a dream world of imagination and magic. In the movie you feel like your just down the road somewhere. The wizarding world is not unlike the omish. In the book Hagrid is half the size of Grawp who is twenty feet. Hagrid is ten feet tall in the book but no bigger than Shaq in the movie? I will not even go into all the parts you never get in the movies. I only hope all who just watch the movies will one day learne the enjoyment of the books. Now to the Deathly Hollows. How could you not see Harry being a Horcrux after the flash back of that night as it is seen in Godric's Hollow? With all of the "can't live while the other survives" talk in the book you had to realize. I love what Harry sees in the pensive! That was awesome. No other way to say it. You look back at Snape and see his character differently. Then when Harry tells Albus he was named after two headmasters and Snape was the bravest man he ever knew! Wow! How did Sirius turn into a dog in Azkaban? Wouldn't he need a wand like Pettigrew did? Maybe not... How can you not fall in love with Kreacher? At the end when he is shouting fight! Heck Yeah! Why is Draco not in Azkaban? He never had a moment like his mother did where he redeems himself and does good. Who is the new headmaster? We can only assume it is McGonagall, right? The battle of Hogwarts is massive! Only fifty four good witches and wizards die. Is King's Cross heaven? There was too much time wasted while they were on the run. Rita Skeeter is as annoying as Dolores Umbridge. Neither should have been brought back. Umbridge should have been killed by the centaurs. They are feared after all and all they did to her is beat her up a little? Ron Weasley... He is useless. And JK realized this while writting this book. You can tell. When he leaves them JK and all of use realise that there is nothing missing. He doesn't hurt them, other than feelings, when he leaves. He had made no contributions in the book, this or any other. And we know she sees this because upon his return he is a totally different character. She makes a point of stating it. He is decisive and helpfull. A complete change in his character. I have loads more to say and would love to discuss any and all things Potter with any of you. You can chat on here, though I am new to this, or e-mail. Thanks for the read and hope you do respond I would like to hear your opinion. James Casey From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 14 17:04:27 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:04:27 -0000 Subject: Dark Book. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177052 "Carol" wrote: > Dumbledore could have gone the way of Gellert Grindelwald It could be argued that Gellert Grindelwald was also redeemed in book 7, he tried to stop Voldemort by lying about the Elder Wand. > I agree that the message that blood > doesn't matter is rather garbled. Blood (heredity) does matter, it's just that it's not the only thing that does matter. > Not a single Slytherin student > fights for Voldemort Crabbe and Goyle do. > Draco stops Crabbe from killing or Crucioing > Harry. Because of Voldemort's orders. > the narrator ceases to be unreliable. No more > comments about Snape as the man Harry hated. I don't believe the narrator was ever unreliable, at one time Harry did hate Snape as much as he hated Voldemort. > No more assertions that Dumbledore > betrayed Harry. And there can be little doubt that Dumbledore did betray Harry, he had to for the greater good. > naming his second son for two > flawed but brilliant headmasters Yes, it shows that Harry has forgiven both of them. > We are not supposed to admire James > and Sirius, the Gryffindor bullies. There may be some truth in that. James must have had some good qualities because so many people we admire say nice things about him, and Lilly (a very good person) did marry him; but that's not what we readers actually see, all his hypothetical good acts seem to happen off page. Eggplant From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Sep 14 17:19:58 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:19:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book Message-ID: <16895921.1189790398528.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177053 lizzyben04: >We can judge the virtue of each House by just how quickly they're >willing to stand up & raise their wands against Pansy (Ravenclaw >lagged a few seconds behind, so they're worse than Hufflepuffs.) In >practice, this means - "mob violence, yey! Torch the witch to prove >your virtue!" If you don't immediately raise your weapon, you're >considered less noble & courageous than the people that do. Your >willingness to use violence against "the other" proves your >worthiness to your society, and even to God. Bart: Or: Gryffindors rushed in without thinking. Hufflepuffs followed. Ravenclaws spent some time thinking about what the logical thing to do would be, and the Slytherins took the path that would give them the best chance of coming out ahead no matter who won. More of an addendum than an alteration. In the form of dialogue: Gryffindors: Charge! Hufflepuffs: We'll help! Ravenclaws: We calcuate our best chance of winning is if we join you. Slytherins: Tell us when the battle's over and we'll stand firmly behind the winners. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Fri Sep 14 18:44:10 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 14:44:10 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Just one little bitty question Message-ID: <211101.1189795450350.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177054 Shelley: >I think Dumbledore was realistic about who he chose as Head Boy and Girl- >not in that he chose "perfect" kids (if the kids had to be perfect to get >it, then practically no Slytherin would ever become Head Boy or Girl!), Bart: Although I would bet money that Sevvy was the Head Case. I think that Head Boy and Head Girl are the equivalent to student body President in American schools, but won't swear to it. Bart From c_and_s_live at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 19:09:17 2007 From: c_and_s_live at yahoo.com (James Casey) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:09:17 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177055 I think that you are overthinking and yet underthinking this at the same time. The virtue of the houses and all... maybe. The Slytherin's parents, I think, would have played the biggest role in their dicision to leave. And so on and so forth to the other houses. How many of the other houses would you expect to stay if only half of Gryffindor stayed? I think that is the depth of the decision. What we know best is the strength of family and the families beliefs above all! They would not defy their families, most of the Slytherin parents or families are most likely about to attack Hogwarts. And this is just opinion and could very easily be off the mark. James Casey From katrinawitch at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 20:17:03 2007 From: katrinawitch at yahoo.com (katrinawitch) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:17:03 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: <98D429A6652B1340A78E486F9E3A2448020F5DCE@ASHEVS003.mcilink.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177056 > Monica: > > I believe that Hermione was actually doing side along apparition to take the 2 of them with her where she went, which is how they all ended up in the same forest when the deatheater apperated with them to #12 grimmauld place. > I've always thought that Hermione took Ron and Harry via side-along apparition because they wanted to make sure they all apparated to the same place, and thus stick together (since they were on the run and just apparating to some random, remote place). It makes sense that Hermione was the one that took the other two along, since she seemed to be the best at apparition (as in a lot of other things!). Kat From gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 20:12:08 2007 From: gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com (gypsy.swpa) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:12:08 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Epilogue Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177057 Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? gypsy.swpa From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 20:36:35 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:36:35 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177058 --- "dreadr" wrote: > > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. > In the first book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily > and James were Head Boy and Girl in their day. I find > it hard to reconcile this picture of James with the > later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but > James? Did he have a sudden brain transplant after > his O.W.L.S.? > > ... > > debbie > bboyminn: I think Lily was always attracted to James, even in the very beginning, but she as much as she found him physically attractive, she couldn't stand the way he acted. James on the other hand acted the way he did because that is what got him 'strokes'. People, quite oddly, generally respond positively to any bully AS LONG AS he is not bullying them. In the 'Worst Memory' scene we see the bulk of the students gathering around and, as I said, reacting positively to James bullying Snape. I also think James thought that showing off would draw Lily's attention and she too would view him in a positive light as other students did. But, on James part, this was grossly immature action. I think once James realized that the students apparent positive reaction was only because he wasn't bullying them personally. In a sense, for your own safety, you don't antagonize a bully; you do your best to stay on his good side. Once James realized that his apparent fans really loathed and feared him, and that his actions were having the exact opposite to the desired affect on Lily, he stopped. Or to give the short version, he grew up. Can anyone deny that his action in the 'Worst Memory' were completely immature and childish? That's the way it is with most boys; each in his own way grows from a silly child to a serious man, and those who don't spend their lives looking like fools. Being a silly immature boy is cute when you ARE a little boy, but it is just plain stupid and annoying when you grow to be a man. I think James simply grew up and wised up. Perhaps the Snape Prank woke him up to how childish he and his friends were acting. Perhaps a near death and the grim compromise of his friend Lupin were the wake-up call that he needed. Perhaps that was the slap in the face that forced him to mellow. Once he mellowed, Lily would no longer have any objection to being friends with him. Does that make sense? Steve/bboyminn From phnurseerin at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 20:24:33 2007 From: phnurseerin at yahoo.com (Erin) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 20:24:33 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177059 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: > > > > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first > > book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and > > Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James > > with the later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? > > Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? You know I think the more we look the more we are going to find ourselves asking these kinds of questions. I, like many of you, am rereading the series in its entirety after reading Deathly Hallows, and am currently rereading The Order of the Phoenix. If you remember when Ron and Hermoine get there prefect badges Sirius tells Harry that James was never a prefect. Not a few lines previous to this Mrs Weasley makes a comment about becoming a prefect being the first step towards becoming head boy! So how did James become head boy without being a prefect! Another discrepancy that just jumped out at me now that I am reading the books consecutively without the long waits for the next book, is the tressils? (spelling? Not my best asset!) If you suddenly see these winged horse after you have seen death, why didn't Harry see them at the end of The Goblet of Fire. There is a scene at King's Cross with the carriages, however no mention of these new creatures! At any rate these are just little things we are going to have to accept, and try not to let them bother us too much! Reguardless, I love the stories, flawed as they might be! phnurseerin From mercia at ireland.com Fri Sep 14 22:11:31 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 22:11:31 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177060 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dreadr" wrote: > > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the first book > Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were Head Boy and Girl in > their day. I find it hard ro reconcile this picture of James with the > later images that we see of him -- Lily maybe but James? Did he have a > sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? > > Lupin was the prefect because James and Sirius stayed in too much > trouble -- Pettigrew obviously wasn't prefect material. I would love > to know how this totally turned around in one year -- or did Hagrid > just have his facts mixed up? > > debbie I've speculated that James had a trauma after his O.W.L.S year which prompted him to mature rather quickly. Since Harry has no grandparents or relatives other than the Dursleys, (very unusual given that James and Lily were such very young parents) I guessed that James' Mum and Dad at least, became victims of Voldemort. Such traumatic grief could maybe produce a bit of empathy in the arrogant prat that James was at that stage and also perhaps evoke Lily's compassionate nature. Of course we don't know what happened to Lily's parents either but they were clearly also both off the scene by the time Lily was in her twenties. But that's another mysterty. JKR simply wanted an orphened hero and wiped out a whole generation above his parents to keep it neater for herself. In RL it is highly unlikely that two sets of middle aged parents would be dead by the time their grandson is 1 year old. So that started me thinking maybe James' parents died while he was still at school, though they were at least alive long enough to be accomodating to Sirius when he ran away from home. Mercia > From bamf505 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 14 22:16:01 2007 From: bamf505 at yahoo.com (Metylda) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:16:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <514871.82769.qm@web31510.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177061 --- "gypsy.swpa" wrote: > Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? > > gypsy.swpa > bamf here: There have been many a long discussion regarding the epilogue. People either hated it (of which I am one) or loved it. I would suggest searching the old posts for this topic. Metylda There is no snooze button on a cat who wants breakfast. ***** Me t wyrd gewf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 00:42:26 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:42:26 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177062 > > Random832: > > That would be true, if there canon stating "40 students in Harry's > > year". There simply is not.> > > Potioncat: > First year flying lesson. Gryffindor and Slytherin combined class. > We're told there are 20 brooms. Lisa: But we're never told that those are ALL the Gryffindor & Slytherin first years. Before this sort of discussion ever came up on the multiple boards, I always assumed that the flying lessons class represented only one class period of first year Gryffindors and Slytherins, not the entirety of the first years in those classes. I figured that the various houses were split up and combined with other houses to foster the mingling of the students, which wouldn't occur otherwise. Then, when JKR was specifically asked how many students were at Hogwarts, total, and she replied "about a thousand," I figured my above scenario fit right in. (Scholastic Interview, 10/16/2000, http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm ) It wasn't until people on the boards started trying to name every single student in Hogwarts that I even thought about it -- but I'm still sticking with my own theory in my head. ;0) Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 00:50:01 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:50:01 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177063 > Carol: > :::snip::: the Sorting > Hat "quarters" the students every year, and there's no reason to > suppose that Ravenclaw would not have the same number of students as > all the others. :::snip::: Lisa: The Sorting Hat "quarters" the students every year? I don't think so. The Sorting Hat determines where new students will go depending upon their characteristics. It is impossible that exactly the same number of students will have characteristics to evenly fill out every House. Lisa From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 00:53:35 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:53:35 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177064 Laura: > > But only after he had resigned from being a Hogwarts teacher. > Does teaching at Hogwarts require celibacy? Are spouses and/or > children of Hogwarts teachers hidden from view? > > Laura Lisa: JKR answered this, but never followed through with the promised info! I used to have a link to the interview from The Leaky Cauldron, but apparently they've moved the interview page. Anyway, she was asked if any Hogwarts teachers were married, and she said yes, but that she couldn't elaborate, because we'd see the importance of those spouses in later books. :::sigh::: Lisa From angellima at xtra.co.nz Sat Sep 15 01:17:55 2007 From: angellima at xtra.co.nz (Angel Lima) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 13:17:55 +1200 Subject: Draco...Interesting? Message-ID: <000001c7f736$3f0b0550$9964a8c0@ezybuycar.local> No: HPFGUIDX 177065 Sarah: I'm not a Snape fan nor do I like Draco very much which is why I guess I can look at the subject objectively. Snape and Draco are both evolving characters. A reader's first impression of them is that they represent the dark arts at Hogwarts, yet threw out the books you begin to understand why they do the things they do ,and in the end I think everyone felt pity for them. Angel: I guess it is more a matter of expectations than subjectivity as your "dislike" already colours your perception yet you read each without expectation thus did not err on any side. I fell in love with Severus from the very first having watched Rickman before reading Rowling's character, I guess I like my men mysterious, super intelligent and quick on the gibe, heck I even like them haunted . With Draco even, I expected more but at each turn his character remained stagnant, merely to bring out the "supposed" best in the trio until HBP when he actually grew a brain, which is interesting because in all great works, the protagonist can only be great if its antagonist is too. I am only willing to admit thus, that James must have been somewhat brilliant - accomplished animagi and not least to attain the privilege of being Severus' arch nemesis lol . May also explain why Harry was himself a twit as Draco was his obvious antagonist in school and Draco limited as he was, prohibited Harry to grow also. In summation quite a horrific thought - just think of the bag of idiocy Voldemort proved to be, just as well as he was offed, can't imagine Harry being any dumber than he already was [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Sat Sep 15 03:11:50 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:11:50 -0000 Subject: Another inconsistency? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177066 Toner > I thought Fenrir had a dark mark? > > During the tower scene at the end of HBP, a group of DEs join DD, > Harry and Draco up on the top of the tower, and the rest of the > OotP can't get up the stairs due to some magical wall except for > Snape. The reasoning for this was that only people with Dark Marks > could go through the invisible wall. > I guess you just explain away the magical wall in the tower under > some other context, but I'd thought I'd bring it up anyway. Ya, that is exactly what I thought before. But now I think that there might have been some spell to break the barrier temporarily. nimisha From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Sat Sep 15 03:05:59 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 03:05:59 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177067 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "gypsy.swpa" wrote: > > Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? nimisha: *No, I did not actually hate the ending. But, I do admit that some parts of it were real confusing. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Sep 15 04:37:21 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:37:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709142137s3f65e524t86e295e0c44ec2ca@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177068 James Casey: How could you not see Harry being a Horcrux after the flash back of that night as it is seen in Godric's Hollow? With all of the "can't live while the other survives" talk in the book you had to realize. Lynda: Nope. I didn't. I knew that he "could" be a horcrux and hoped that if JKR took that line she would do it in a way that would make me believe it, but I've read enough SF/Fantasy/Thriller/Horror that I did not see that he had to be a horcrux and I rather hoped he wouldn't be, to be honest. And yes, she did, in the end make it believable. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 15 04:41:48 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 04:41:48 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177069 > Jen: Yeah...but even reading the scene emphasizing a different angle > didn't keep me from noticing JKR's choice there. I have a very > distinct memory of being thrown out of the story in my first read- > through of the Great Hall scene - 'Really? *None* of the Slytherins > stood up? Why did JKR write the moment like that?' Pippin: On first reading the naive reader can assume that they're all traitors and cowards and cheer their departure, or at least be relieved by it. The reader who was expecting at least some of them to support Harry is surprised, and still more surprised when the Slytherins suffer no consequences from their seeming treachery. The Slytherins are essentially static except for Crabbe's rebellion against Draco, so it must be Harry who changes his expectations. Harry has been living with the moral system of a fairy tale. Goodness is associated with his survival and evil with the forces attempting to destroy him. But in this book the fairytale system is outgrown. It is replaced, IMO, with the moral system of the romance narrative: Goodness is associated with the family, evil with the forces trying to tear it apart. In accepting that he must die to defeat Voldemort, Harry accepts that he can no longer view good and evil through the lens of his own survival. In becoming Teddy's godfather he had already accepted responsibility for the next generation, now he must fulfill it. Those who accompany him in the forest are those who died for him in the same way, for the same cause. Not Snape, who never repented of his desire to destroy Harry's family, and not Tonks, who gave her life for her husband's sake not her child's. The family is a greater good than the self, the child a greater good than the parent. The reader must be meant to reassess the Slytherins' behavior through Harry's new moral vision. What matters is not his personal survival but that families not be torn apart. McGonagall demanded that the Slytherins decide where their loyalties lie: with Voldemort or with Hogwarts. But the Slytherins cannot fight Voldemort without fighting their own families or each other. A Hogwarts which turns families against each other is no longer acting for the greater good. Hogwarts was made for the students, not the students for Hogwarts. McGonagall thought she was acting in the best interest of the school, but she made the same mistake that she saw Augusta making with Neville -- she didn't appreciate what she had and tried to make it into what she thought she should have. It is a sin that runs through canon. Jen: She honestly didn't think her > Slytherin characters would fight Voldemort - why? Pippin: We know some of them would have defended Harry, judging by their behavior in GoF, despite his hating them on sight every day of his Hogwarts career. But the school had forfeited their loyalty. McGonagall insulted them and denied them her trust, not at all what Dumbledore would have done. He told the Durmstrang students they would always be welcome at Hogwarts although he knew that they came from a school where the Dark Arts were taught and Muggleborns were excluded, and a former DE was their headmaster. But also, the Slytherins were in no better position to see the big picture than Kreacher was. The Carrows would have been nice to them, and a Hogwarts where the Dark Arts were taught and Muggleborns were excluded is what they'd always been told Hogwarts should be. Pippin From juli17 at aol.com Sat Sep 15 05:44:17 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 05:44:17 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177070 Steve/bboyminn wrote: > I think James simply grew up and wised up. Perhaps > the Snape Prank woke him up to how childish he and > his friends were acting. Perhaps a near death and > the grim compromise of his friend Lupin were the > wake-up call that he needed. Perhaps that was the > slap in the face that forced him to mellow. Once he > mellowed, Lily would no longer have any objection to > being friends with him. Julie: It wasn't the Prank, because now we know that Snape's Worst Memory came *after* the Prank. Whatever reason James had for saving Snape (probably to keep Lupin and Sirius out of trouble, and perhaps also his own ethics against allowing even those he is more than happy torturing on a regular basis to die if he can help it--rather like a certain Potions Master!), and however the Prank may have affected him, what it didn't cause was any sudden leap of insight or maturity on James' part. He's still eager to go two on one against Snape because Snape "exists." So something must have happened later to provide that wake up call. Mercia wrote: I've speculated that James had a trauma after his O.W.L.S year which prompted him to mature rather quickly. Since Harry has no grandparents or relatives other than the Dursleys, (very unusual given that James and Lily were such very young parents) I guessed that James' Mum and Dad at least, became victims of Voldemort. Such traumatic grief could maybe produce a bit of empathy in the arrogant prat that James was at that stage and also perhaps evoke Lily's compassionate nature. Of course we don't know what happened to Lily's parents either but they were clearly also both off the scene by the time Lily was in her twenties. But that's another mysterty. JKR simply wanted an orphened hero and wiped out a whole generation above his parents to keep it neater for herself. In RL it is highly unlikely that two sets of middle aged parents would be dead by the time their grandson is 1 year old. So that started me thinking maybe James' parents died while he was still at school, though they were at least alive long enough to be accomodating to Sirius when he ran away from home. Julie: I like the idea that James' parents were victims of Voldemort, and I really can't figure out why JKR didn't run with that, instead of just tossing into her James backstory (surely he has one if even Dean Thomas has a detailed one) that his parents died of...er, how about old age. Even if you put them at 50 when James was born (i.e., really old for a mother especially), they would have died around 70, which isn't old age anymore, especially for a wizard. (Add Lily's parents both dying at quite a young age, as they weren't noted to be "older" parents, and it's all pretty strange.) Well, as you say, JKR just wanted all those grandparents out of the way. But she does miss some pretty obvious opportunities, IMO. In any case, James' parents died before Harry was even born AFAWK, so they could have died in his sixth year or the summer before his seventh year. Being suddenly left alone and responsible for himself would likely force some maturity in James. Works better than any other theory I've heard as a reason for such an apparently dramatic change in James from his fifth year boorishness to his seventh year, when he became Head Boy and quit hexing every student who annoyed him, and managed to win Lily's admiration and eventually her love. Julie From catlady at wicca.net Sat Sep 15 07:42:01 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 07:42:01 -0000 Subject: DD-Erised/Calling by Surname/The Box/Sorting AlbusSeverus/Sorting DeanThomas Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177072 Finwitch wrote in : << Dumbledore- He might have just refused to answer, could he not? I think he told the truth but not the whole truth. I think he might have seen himself holding socks, but also Ariana. The socks being a christmas gift from her to Albus - or from Albus to her. (I do wonder about Albus reading knitting patterns...) >> Before DH, I had always theorized that DD was telling the truth about what he saw in the Mirror, just not the whole truth; I figured it was the ugly, uncomfortable hand-knit socks that his late beloved wife or mother had given him every Christmas, and his real desire was his lost beloved person, not the socks. I hadn't thought it would be a sister. I always thought DD's remark to Slughorn and Harry about looking at the Muggle knitting magazines in the loo was *completely* in jest, which with my track record makes it very likely that DD was completely addicted to knitting. Kemper wrote in : << I think it's appropriate to his character that he's referred by his surname. It only seems to be Cissy, Lily and Albus who refer to Snape with his first name. They are also the only ones who show any sort of empathy or intimacy (not sexual) to him. Everyone else he keeps at arm and wand's length. >> And Igor. There was some kind of intimacy in that relationship, even if the relationship was only that when they were both Death Eaters, they were sent on assignments together. Maybe they knew each other even before they became Death Eaters. We now know that Karkaroff was never Potions Master at Hogwarts nor Head of Slytherin House (because Slughorn was filling those posts), but has it been ruled out that he could have taught another subject at Hogwarts and had Snape as favorite student? And Remus, but I think he was following DD's instruction that Hogwarts Professors should call each other by first name and Order members should call each other by first name, possibly motivated by the pleasure that it irritated Severus. And Minerva: "Really, Severus," said Professor McGonagall sharply, "I see no reason to stop the boy playing Quidditch. This cat wasn't hit over the head with a broomstick. There is no evidence at all that Potter has done anything wrong." Potioncat wrote in : << What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking for? >> My answwer is approximately the same as Alla's. The event I would want to read is The Prank. Some people want to read it to find out whether Sirius was being an attempted murderer or just an idiot. I'm certain he was being just an idiot, but I'm very curious how he induced Severus to go down the tunnel. And what I would be looking for all through the manuscript is anything that can be taken as evidence for the Sirius/Remus ship. In addition, I want to know whether there is actually something the Bloody Baron could *do* to punish Peeves (what could he do and why can't anyone else do it?). Or maybe Carol is right and Peeves is scared of the Baron just because the Baron has such a bad temper that if he *could* do something, he *would* do it. Leah wrote in : << What's the child going to choose - the house of a brave dead man who is only a name to the boy, the house about which his brother has been teasing him unmercifully all the way to Kings Cross and for some time before, or the house of his parents, and all his grandparents, and his older brother? >> I want little Albie Sevvie to choose Slytherin (where they will call him Severus) and I've planned out how it can happen. On the Hogwarts Express, Albie and Rosie find Jamie and his friends re-uniting after the holiday. Jamie introduces them to those of his friends who aren't Weasleys as 'this is my idiot little brother Albie and my obnoxious little cousin Rosie' and the friends join him in 'teasing' the 'babies'. Rosie throws it right back at them ("YOu're just jealous that you can't be as obnoxious as I can") but Albie is sensitive and makes an excuse to leave that compartment ("Where's the loo?"). So Albie wanders into another compartment with some other new firsties and makes friends with them. They turn out to be Slythies. The Sorting Hat says to Albie something like: "Another Weasley, I see. I suppose you'll fit into Gryffindor with your brother and your cousins-" and Albie, suddenly reliving some nasty thing Jamie did to him, says: "Do I have to be with my brother?" "No, you can be in SLYTHERIN!" Zanooda wrote in : << this one maybe is not JKR's fault :-). I have both american and british editions of SS/PS, and Dean Thomas is only mentioned in the american edition, not in the british one. So originally there were really three kids left. I think that maybe american editors added Dean, but forgot to change the number from three to four :-). >> Yes, but the American editors only added Dean Thomas to that paragraph because he was in much of the rest of the story and they knew alphabetical order. Dean Thomas must have been sorted between somewhere between Harry Potter and Lisa Turpin, even if the narrator didn't mention him. From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Sat Sep 15 08:02:13 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:02:13 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177073 Hiya! I know that it's a good thing that Voldemort is dead, but what I don't get is why? We all know that Harry did not die because his blood was running in Voldemort. That kept them connected. But then, when voldemort died, he still had Harry's blood. So, the thing which connected them was still there. So, how could he die? nimisha From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Sat Sep 15 08:12:41 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 08:12:41 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177074 > debbie: > I would also like to know more about Lily and James. In the > first book Hagrid is telling Harry that Lily and James were > Head Boy and Girl in their day. I find it hard ro reconcile > this picture of James with the later images that we see of him. > Did he have a sudden brain transplant after his O.W.L.S.? According to me, James sobered up a little after his OWLs. That might have been due to the fact that Lily hated him so much and it also might have been because maybe he scored less than expected. It is also entirely possible that he suffered some huge shock and was forced to act in a more matured manner. Though, he might also have been made the head boy because he was close to Dumbledore (as they lived in the same village and Dumbledore was interested in his cloak). nimisha From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 15 14:07:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:07:49 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177075 > Julie: > It wasn't the Prank, because now we know that Snape's Worst > Memory came *after* the Prank. Whatever reason James had for > saving Snape (probably to keep Lupin and Sirius out of trouble, > and perhaps also his own ethics against allowing even those he > is more than happy torturing on a regular basis to die if he > can help it--rather like a certain Potions Master!), and however > the Prank may have affected him, what it didn't cause was any > sudden leap of insight or maturity on James' part. He's still > eager to go two on one against Snape because Snape "exists." > So something must have happened later to provide that wake up > call. Pippin: I don't think James had ever experienced much rejection in his life -- not from people whose acceptance he wanted. Being called toerag by someone who was obviously attracted to him but was fighting those feelings because she didn't approve of him seems to have been a new experience. IMO, it took him a while, but he finally realized she might stop fighting her attraction to him if he stopped hexing people for fun. The way she dropped Snape may have been a wake up call. But also, I think he just grew up and didn't need to test his limits any more. Pippin From funkeginger at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 13:54:30 2007 From: funkeginger at yahoo.com (ginger mabayoje) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 06:54:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <733094.17083.qm@web37014.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177076 gypsy.swpa wrote: Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? gypsy.swpa FUNKGINGER I did not like the ending either. I was hoping that JK would prolong the ending in at lest 3 or 4 books but instead she just made 36 years old with a family. I think she should've killed Harry or something. From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Sat Sep 15 14:37:29 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 14:37:29 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177077 > > We all know that Harry did not die because his blood was running in > Voldemort. That kept them connected. But then, when voldemort died, > he still had Harry's blood. So, the thing which connected them was > still there. So, how could he die? > > nimisha > Was it the Blood connection that kept Harry from dying? I'm not sure of that. The connection between Voldemort and Harry gets a little confusing as there are multiple strands to it. Initially they were connected by nothing. Then after Godric's Hollow Harry received protection from his mother's 'Blood sacrifice' but became a host to a 'bit' of Voldemorts soul. Voldemort was 'disembodied but did not die because his Horcruxes kept him 'anchored' to life. When Voldemort recreated his body he used Harry's blood. This then created a second strand of connnection betweem them, which protected Voldemort from the immediate effect of the blood protection, ie. he could now touch Harry without damage. The destruction of the Horcruxes removed Voldemorts immortality. Dumbledore destroying the ring, Harry destroyed the diary, Rom and Hermione the Cup, the fiendfyre the Diadem, Neville the snake. Voldemort destroyed the bit in Harry but not Harry himself because the Elder wand would not kill its true master. The flaw in that argument though is that Dumbledore did not intend V to get the Elder wand nor could he forsee that the mastery of it would come to Harry. All along though Dumbledore was adamant that Harry must 'die' at V's hand. So, was Harry's 'tie' to life the blood connection or possession of 'The Hallows'. I am still not sure, but tend to agree that if Harry's tie to life was solely the blood then it should work both ways and have tied V as well. In Kings Cross, Dumbledore says that Harry has a choice to return to life or 'catch a train'. He only seems to have that choice because he is 'whole'. Voldemort's soul has arrive there barely alive and apparently incapable of much at all, except to lie under a bench and whimper. Presumably all the other bits of his soul arrive in the afterlife in the same condition. Therefore after death he is incapable of exercising a choice to return (even though a 'tie to life' exists) as he is too mutilated to do so. I enjoyed DH because it brought the series to it conclusion and initially answered my questions. But now, nearly two months later I have to admit a lot of lingering dissatisfaction with issues like this one that seem to have been a bit 'fudged'. So the short answer to your question is 'I don't know' and now I'm not sure JKR does either! allthecoolnamesgone From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 18:16:26 2007 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:16:26 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Imperio. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EC217A.40505@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177078 eggplant107 blessed us with this gem On 13/09/2007 00:41: > > Well, no, actually. JKR gave them > > that name [The Unforgivable curses]. > Then I suppose Voldemort didn't say there is no such thing as good or > evil there is only power, JKR said it. An author doesn't necessarily > believe everything that comes out of one of her character's mouth. JKR gives us no other name for them. From start to finish, they're called the Unforgivable Curses, and not just by some characters, or the MoM. Fake Moody doesn't introduce them to the students as the "so-called Unforgivables". Hermione doesn't say, "Some people think they're too horrific to tolerate". Snape doesn't tell Harry, "No Pretty-Bad-But-Not-Really-Unforgivables for you!" If JKR intended us to understand that only some faction or other of the WW considered them "unforgivable", then she did a very poor job of communicating it. Whether it was the MoM who invented the moniker is nearly irrelvant; the designation appears to be applied universally throughout the wizarding world. --CJ From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 18:24:41 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:24:41 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177079 --- "julie" wrote: > > Steve/bboyminn wrote: > > > I think James simply grew up and wised up. Perhaps > > the Snape Prank woke him up to how childish he and > > his friends were acting. ... > > Julie: > It wasn't the Prank, because now we know that > Snape's Worst Memory came *after* the Prank. ... bboyminn: Sorry, not that I doubt you, but HOW do we know that Snape's Worst Memory came after the Prank? The only place I can think of is in Snape's Penseive Memories in DH, but I'm not convinced that they were in chronological order, and I don't recall anything specific in them that would confirm this conclusion. Any help? Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 18:35:58 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 18:35:58 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177080 --- "gypsy.swpa" wrote: > > Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? > > gypsy.swpa > bboyminn: I was OK with the Epilogue, but naturally as a fan I wanted all the details I could possibly get. In that sense I was disappointed. But to some extent you have to take it the way it comes from the author. It is her story to tell. Based on interviews after HP&tDH, JKR indicated that the original ending was longer and fill with A LOT more detail, but it just wasn't working. So, she switched to a more 'life is good/life goes on' type of ending. This is sort of a 'slice of life' scene, rather than a story; a brief window into a moment in time that implies what is going on in the world around it. We see Harry/Ginny and Ron/Hermione with kids, seeing them off to school. We see Harry praise Snape as brave. We hear Harry say that it's OK to be in Slytherin. We see Draco and Harry exchange a polite nod. That implies that while things may not be friendly between Draco and Harry, they are at least resolved to politeness. Also, JKR said, that once she decided on the 'Slice of Life' ending, she didn't want this scene to be crystal clear. She wanted us to see it through the fog of time, as if we are viewing it through both a literal and metaphorical haze. So, she went from an ending filled with details that wasn't working, to an ending missing MANY details, but at the same time implied everything we wanted to know. The message was clearly 'life is good/life goes on'. So as a reader I understand and accept the ending, but as an obsessed fan, I REALLY REALLY wanted those details. I think it is that noticable lack of detailed explanation of everything that has left some fan unsatisfied. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Sat Sep 15 19:13:34 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:13:34 -0000 Subject: Just one little bitty question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177081 Steve: > > Sorry, not that I doubt you, but HOW do we know that > Snape's Worst Memory came after the Prank? The only > place I can think of is in Snape's Penseive Memories > in DH, but I'm not convinced that they were in > chronological order, and I don't recall anything > specific in them that would confirm this conclusion. > > Any help? Ceridwen: Lily and Snape were still talking after the Prank. Lily mentions it. After SWM, she is no longer speaking to Snape for having called her a "Mudblood". He waits outside Gryffindor Tower for her and she turns her back on him and shuts the portrait hole against him. The Prank would need to have taken place before SWM just because they were still talking, and he was still able to get Lily to admit that James was a "toerag" at that point. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 15 19:30:34 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:30:34 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177082 Steve/bboyminn: > So as a reader I understand and accept the ending, but > as an obsessed fan, I REALLY REALLY wanted those > details. I think it is that noticable lack of detailed > explanation of everything that has left some fan > unsatisfied. > Pippin: Trouble is, no amount of detail can satisfy an obsessed fan, because just as in the real world, when the known facts increase, the known unknowns increase exponentially. Harry began the books not knowing who he was. At the end the answer we get is : a husband and a father, a fan of Dumbledore and Snape (!) and a promoter of tolerance between Gryffindor and Slytherin. What more do we really need to know? I'd *like* to know the whole history of Middle-earth, Over-heaven and the Sundering Seas... oops, wrong book Pippin From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 15 20:26:40 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:26:40 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177083 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" wrote: > > Laura: > > > > But only after he had resigned from being a Hogwarts teacher. > > Does teaching at Hogwarts require celibacy? Are spouses and/or > > children of Hogwarts teachers hidden from view? > > > > Laura > > Lisa: > > JKR answered this, but never followed through with the promised info! > I used to have a link to the interview from The Leaky Cauldron, but > apparently they've moved the interview page. Anyway, she was asked if > any Hogwarts teachers were married, and she said yes, but that she > couldn't elaborate, because we'd see the importance of those spouses in > later books. :::sigh::: > > Lisa > marion11111: I think she meant the Lupin/Tonks marriage even though he was no longer a teacher and that story happened much later and wasn't even all that significant to the overall plot. Kind of like telling us a character will get a reprieve - leading us to think someone got a repreive in the book she was currently working on and not a book finished years ago. I suppose in her mind, the stories had all happened so she could switch between past, present and future without considering what we did or didn't know. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 15 20:39:52 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:39:52 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <46EC217A.40505@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177084 CJ: If JKR intended us to understand that only some faction or other of the WW considered them "unforgivable", then she did a very poor job of communicating it. Pippin: Sirius says that the Aurors were authorized to use the Unforgivable Curses during the last Voldemort War, so the term wasn't always taken literally. Sirius doesn't like that decision, but he says "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." It's implied that Moody might have used Imperio and Cruciatus without descending as far as a Death Eater. Also, Slughorn says that murder is the greatest evil, implying that torture and magical coercion aren't as bad. Snape, who is very powerful and very well disciplined, seems to be able to use the Confundus Curse with as much effect as Imperio. Perhaps that is one of the reforms that Harry was able to implement in later life. I don't think there is much excuse for using Crucio, but after seeing how easy it was for Harry to use it, I can appreciate Crouch's dilemma better. A prohibition is only as good as the willingness to observe it. If Crouch hadn't authorized the use of the Unforgivables, he might have had to put his best fighters in Azkaban, and then what would have happened? The solution, in the real world, would lie in training and esprit de corps, but those can't be implemented overnight. Pippin thinking that Harry had to find out that he could use Crucio to understand why the mere prohibition was not enough. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 15 23:39:10 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 23:39:10 -0000 Subject: "Magic is Might" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177085 Wondering about the unifying concept behind DH led me to consider how important the concept "Magic is Might" is to the story and series. The desire to control via magical power is set up as a pervasive problem in the WW from how I understand the story. The desire is the basis for various agendas from Muggle domination, to magical humans divided by blood trying to control each other, to humans justifying the oppression of magical creatures and finally even the attempt to overcome human limitations such as death. What all have in common is the belief that magical power can be a means to some 'better' end, one which will redefine a certain boundary present in the WW. In HBP, Dumbledore and Voldemort present two views of magical power with the suggestion that 'the old argument' is one the two of them have had before, or perhaps it is a long-standing discussion in the WW. Voldemort represents the pursuit of magical power at all costs vs. Dumbledore's balancing of magical power with one's humanity (that's how I understand this argument after DH rather than as an argument about different branches of magic). 'You call it "greatness", what you have been doing, do you?' asked Dumbledore delicately. 'Certainly,' said Voldemort, and his eyes seemed to burn red. 'I have experimented; I have pusheed the boundaries of magic further, perhaps, than they have ever been pushed -' 'Of some kinds of magic,' Dumbledore corrected him quietly. 'Of some. Of others, you remain ... forgive me... woefully ignorant.' [] 'The old argument,' he said softly. But nothing I have seen in this world has supported your famous pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.' (chap. 20, p. 415, UK ed.) Interestingly, DH reveals that their opposing beliefs evolved from similarities as much as differences. Dumbledore's description of young Riddle as 'highly self-sufficient, secretive and, apparently, friendless' in chap. 13 of HBP isn't far off from the description Aberforth gives of Albus when he says, "And did he tell you everything, was he honest with you? [...] 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." Both are described as extremely intelligent and magically powerful. One main difference between them is how Dumbledore's remorse over Ariana led him to attempt to limit his power over the years, a balancing act that wasn't always successful. Sometimes his secrecy and personal desires interfered with his moral responsibilities. He's noted on the chocolate frog card for his 'defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindelwald' a defeat that wasn't exactly a noble quest on Dumbledore's part to rid the WW of evil as he notes here: "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." (DH, chap. 35, p. 718, Am. ed) Another area where both Dumbledore and Voldemort sought power was the defeat of death, Hallows vs. Horcruxes. Voldemort latched onto pureblood supremacy as the justification for extending Slytherin's line indefinitely through his own immortality and proceeded to split his soul to that end. Dumbledore attempted to balance his desire to unite the Hallows with the realization he was 'unworthy' to do so, only good enough to 'tame' the Elder wand and keep it out of another's hand. Ultimately his own temptation got the best of him when discovering the Hallow he desired most, forgetting that the Resurrection Stone had ironically been turned into one of Voldemort's Horcruxes. Considering 'Magic is Might' again and how control and domination is only as far as one's wand hand, it seems like the inherent struggle of the WW is balancing the use of magical power with the acceptance of being human. At least, this idea explains to me why Harry was the person JKR envisioned as a hero for the WW. His solutions in moments of crisis almost always focus on the limits of his own power rather than his magical prowess and he instinctively turns to others for help rather than attempting to pursue a magical agenda of his own. His biggest flaws are connected to his humaness rather than his magical ability, times when he lashes out in anger or acts without thinking or is reckless in his 'rightness.' Even his final confrontation with Voldemort was mostly Harry talking, no magic until he unleashes one last signature 'Expelliarmus,' a move that is a firm denial that Magic is Might! Jen From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 16 01:08:20 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:08:20 -0000 Subject: Snape killed Crouch Snr In-Reply-To: <003901c7f090$dcee4c70$96cae550$@com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177086 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tim Regan" wrote: > 1) In DH Chapter 30 ... Harry saw in the distance a huge bat-like > shape flying through the darkness towards the perimeter wall. > <<< > > 2. Back in GoF Chapter 29 ...the trio are discussing the murder of > Barty Crouch Snr: >>> > "If Snape hadn't held me up," Harry said bitterly, "we might've > got there in time. 'The headmaster is busy. Potter . . . what's > this rubbish, Potter?' Why couldn't he have just got out of the > way?" > > "Maybe he didn't want you to get there!" said Ron quickly. "Maybe - > hang on - how fast d'you reckon he could've gotten down to the > forest? D'you reckon he could've beaten you and Dumbledore there?" > > "Not unless he can turn himself into a bat or something," said > Harry. <<< > > So he can! Cheers, > Dumbledad. Aussie now: For Murder, prove opportunity, means and motive. I think Barty Jr had more motives to kill Barty Snr than Snape did. But Snape did have a motive for hiding the body. The body of a Ministry official would raise questions of "who did it", and the only known ex-Death Eaters at Hogwarts were Karkaroff and Snape. Snape didn't want either to be under Ministry questioning tactics. Karkaroff spent a lot of time talking to Snape - about what? -Snape didn't want too many to know. It is true that while Barty Jr (Moody double) was questioned under vertiserum, Snape was at the back of the group and could have used mind altering spells (like Kingsley did to Maretta). Any involvement from Snape could have been covered up. After all, when "Moody" comes to Dumbledore in the forest, he claimed Snape sent him after saying something of "Crouch". The Map showed Harry meeting with Dumbledore and Snape, but didn't give details fo what was said or when. He could have guessed Harry spoke of Crouch in front of Snape, but it was a gamble. aussie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 02:25:43 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 02:25:43 -0000 Subject: Re; What is in the box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177087 > Potioncat wrote in > : > > << What event that must have happened off page, whether or not it was > described, is one you'd like to read? So? What would you be looking > for? >> Catlady wrote: > My answer is approximately the same as Alla's. The event I would want > to read is The Prank. Some people want to read it to find out whether > Sirius was being an attempted murderer or just an idiot. I'm certain > he was being just an idiot, but I'm very curious how he induced > Severus to go down the tunnel. Alla: Right, I am certain as well that he was being an idiot, but besides being extremely curious how he induced Snape to go down to the tunnel and why why Snape listened to him, that is not the whole reason why I would want to read it. It is just, I do not know, this whole scene is one of the most intense scenes among many many books I read. Not only it is intense, it remains for me to be vague even after series ended, meaning that I cannot construct the whole picture in my mind. I mean, I can but I do not know if it will be the same as what author intended. I mean, stupidity, heroism, curiosity, obnoxiousness - everything, everything I can see there and at the same time, I cannot, because it is not written. Oh man, I hope she at least says more in the encyclopedia. Catlady: > And what I would be looking for all through the manuscript is anything > that can be taken as evidence for the Sirius/Remus ship. Alla: Sigh. I wish ... I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon, LOL, so I grew to love Sirius/Remus too. Sigh. Alla From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 16 04:17:38 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:17:38 -0400 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177088 Because when he 'killed' Harry the first time, what really died was the bit of his own soul that was implanted in Harry. The connection between them was broken. 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 bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 06:36:16 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:36:16 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177089 ---"allthecoolnamesgone" wrote: > > > nimisha: > > > > We all know that Harry did not die because his > > blood was running in Voldemort. That kept them > > connected. But then, when voldemort died,he still > > had Harry's blood. So, the thing which connected > > them was still there. So, how could he die? > > > > nimisha > > > allthecoolnamesgone: > > Was it the Blood connection that kept Harry from > dying? I'm not sure of that. > bboyminn: On this secondary aspect, I agree, what saved harry is not as simple as one thing. It is a complex intermix of a wide range of things. > allthecoolnamesgone: > > ... > > ... I ...tend to agree that if Harry's tie to life > was solely the blood then it should work both ways > and have tied V as well. In Kings Cross, Dumbledore > says that Harry has a choice to return to life or > 'catch a train'. He only seems to have that choice > because he is 'whole'. Voldemort's soul has arrive > there barely alive .... bboyminn: I agree, but to an extremely limited extent. Let me ask you this, if /I/ create a Horcrux, are /you/ protected by it? I think not. Voldemort having Harry blood is similar in its action to a Horcrux. As long as Harry's protective blood remains on earth, Harry is protected from death, or at least, is given a choice. How does or how can that possible protect Voldemort? It can't. For Voldemort to be protected, someone somewhere would have to have a few drops of Voldemort's 'protected' blood in them. But first and foremost, Voldemort's blood doesn't carry the same protection that is offerred by Lily's sacrifice. Second, even if Voldemort's blood was magically protected in the same way as Harry's, no one else is holding Voldemort's blood in their living body. So, no protection for Voldemort. However, I do acknowledge a limited degree of protection. Notice the both Harry /and/ Voldemort are found in the limbo of the King's Cross scene. I suspect, /IF/ Voldemort had no more Horcruxes protecting him, Harry could have simply chosen to /go on/, and Voldemort would have had no choice but to follow. Under other circumstances, it would have been a way to kill Voldemort. However, Voldemort still has one Horcrux left, so Harry job is unfinished. He has to go back in order to assure Voldemort's final demise. So, as I said, to an extremely limited extent, Harry blood is protecting Voldemort. When Harry choses to come back, he is also making that same choice for Voldemort. In short, Voldemort having Harry's blood protects Harry, but no one else. Just like my having a Horcrux doesn't protect you. Steve/bboyminn From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Sun Sep 16 14:22:39 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:22:39 -0400 Subject: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: <000a01c7f86d$09f085b0$14fae2d1@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 177090 James Casey said: >>How did Sirius turn into a dog in Azkaban? Wouldn't he need a wand like Pettigrew did? Maybe not...<< I have a problem with this as well. Now that we *know* you must have a wand to apparate, surely you would also need one for the Animagus transformation that took two of the cleverest students in the school three years to learn? Apparently, though, it is not so. On the same line, though, it is obvious that PP had at least one wand (LV's) and possibly another (his own as well) with him when he transformed into Scabbers after the confrontation with Sirius. Why on earth did he not at least Disarm everyone in the Shrieking Shack when he was forced, by Lupin and Sirius, to transform back into PP? As Scabbers he certainly knew what was going on and what was about to happen to him. CathyD TrentonON [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar Sun Sep 16 13:52:24 2007 From: liliput99ar at yahoo.com.ar (liliput99ar) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 13:52:24 -0000 Subject: Sirius/Remus SHIP WAS: Re: What is in the box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177091 > Catlady: > > And what I would be looking for all through the manuscript is > anything > > that can be taken as evidence for the Sirius/Remus ship. > > > Alla: > > Sigh. I wish ... I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon, LOL, > so I grew to love Sirius/Remus too. Sigh. > Nora: Catlady and Alla, why? Do you see any hint of this? I am interested in knowing why there is so much fanfic about this matter. It has never came to my mind reading the books. From zarleycat at sbcglobal.net Sun Sep 16 14:58:10 2007 From: zarleycat at sbcglobal.net (kiricat4001) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 14:58:10 -0000 Subject: Re; What is in the box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177092 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> > Catlady wrote: > > My answer is approximately the same as Alla's. The event I would > want > > to read is The Prank. . > > Alla: > > Right, I am certain as well that he was being an idiot, but besides > being extremely curious how he induced Snape to go down to the > tunnel and why why Snape listened to him, that is not the whole > reason why I would want to read it. > > Catlady: > > And what I would be looking for all through the manuscript is > anything > > that can be taken as evidence for the Sirius/Remus ship. > > > Alla: > > Sigh. I wish ... I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon, LOL, > so I grew to love Sirius/Remus too. Sigh. > Marianne: Count me in, too. I could have sworn that JKR said we'd hear more about the Prank. I guess we did, but I want to all the details leading up to the Prank and also the aftermath. Did DD find out all the details? When? Was Sirius punished at all? If so, what was his sentence? How did this affect the group dynamics of the Marauders, if it did at all? So many questions... In poking through Potioncat's hypothetical box, I'd also like to find the line dropped from Harry and Hermione's conversation at the Potters gravesite in DH, where Harry says, "If we finally get rid of Voldemort, I'm going to come back here and place a memorial to Sirius next to my parents." I'd also like to know how DD knew to send Hagrid to Godric's Hollow so soon after the deaths of James and Lily. There are a ton of other little detail-y questions, but I'll leave them for now. Marianne, still sailing on the ghostship SB/RL From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 16 15:20:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:20:10 -0000 Subject: Re; What is in the box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177093 > Alla: > > Right, I am certain as well that he was being an idiot, but besides > being extremely curious how he induced Snape to go down to the > tunnel and why why Snape listened to him, that is not the whole > reason why I would want to read it. > > It is just, I do not know, this whole scene is one of the most > intense scenes among many many books I read. Pippin: But it was just a great big scarlet fishy after all. :) We should have known when it got left out of the CTTMNBN. Very intense, but no life-changing consequences for anyone, except that it guaranteed that there'd be fertile ground for misunderstandings in the future and coldness between Snape and the ex-Marauders even when they all knew they were on the same side. Much like Draco and Harry these days, I guess. Me, I'd like to hear Harry explaining to his kids why Mr. Malfoy doesn't like him..."and that's why I'm always telling you, and I mean YOU, James, NEVER try out a spell on a person if you don't know what it does." Alla: > Not only it is intense, it remains for me to be vague even after > series ended, meaning that I cannot construct the whole picture in > my mind. Pippin: We know Snape wanted to impress Lily, and he wanted to prove that the Marauders were Up To Something that would get them expelled and out of his life (and hers.) I suppose he thought the tunnel led to an enclosure where the werewolf was confined. Apparently, it didn't occur to him that the tunnel *was* the enclosure where the werewolf was confined. Oops. Nobody bought Snape's theories about Lupin being a werewolf because their idea of werewolves was outlaws like Fenrir Greyback, big, dangerous and hostile, full moon or not. Who'd believe that wimpy, sickly, bookish Lupin could turn into a full grown monster every month? Well, Snape could, but most wizards haven't got an ounce of logic. Sirius was probably not thinking past the glorious moment when Snape would wet himself. James probably *was* thinking more about keeping his friends out of trouble than about saving Snape. But that's all there was to it, IMO. No heroes, no villains, just a bunch of kids with more time on their hands than was good for them. ::sigh:: Sometimes we grownups forget how mental teenagers can be. Pippin who still wants to know who was kissing Florence behind the greenhouses From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 16 15:42:35 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:42:35 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177094 > > marion11111: > I think she meant the Lupin/Tonks marriage even though he was no > longer a teacher and that story happened much later and wasn't even > all that significant to the overall plot. Kind of like telling us a > character will get a reprieve - leading us to think someone got a > repreive in the book she was currently working on and not a book > finished years ago. Pippin: Here's the quote: Have any of the Hogwarts professors had spouses? JKR: Good question - yes, a few of them, but that information is sort of restricted - you'll find out why.. --- Originally Lupin wasn't supposed to die. If she was still planning to have Lupin survive and become DADA professor again when she answered the question, then she wouldn't have wanted to give that away, but wouldn't want to tell us it wasn't important either. Pippin From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 16 16:10:12 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 16:10:12 -0000 Subject: Imperio. In-Reply-To: <46EC217A.40505@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177095 Lee Kaiwen wrote: > JKR gives us no other name for them. > From start to finish, they're called > the Unforgivable Curses True. > Fake Moody doesn't introduce them to > the students as the "so-called Unforgivables". Instead of telling us that the name is not to be taken literally JKR does something much better, she shows us. Harry successfully uses 2 out of the 3 unforgivable curses but if she wanted her readers to despise Harry and never to forgive him then she has indeed done a remarkably bad job. But just between you and me, I have a sneaky hunch that JKR did not want her readers to hate Harry. > Hermione doesn't say, "Some people > think they're too horrific to tolerate". So, are you asking us to believe that Hermione hated Harry till her dying day? If the name of those curses is meant to be taken literally then she must. Thus the name is not to be taken literally. QED. Eggplant From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 15:26:29 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 15:26:29 -0000 Subject: Book 7 Epilogue In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177096 > gypsy.swpa: > Did anyone else hate the ending of book 7? I try not to get too "bent out of shape" by the epilogue if that is what you are referring to. Please remember that the main text of DH closes with an exhausted, now victorious Harry thinking of a sandwich to eat and his bed in Gryffindor tower (DH, ch. 36, Amer. page 749). I assume that his next two acts, outside of walking upstairs, are eating and sleeping -- a well deserved, long rest. So I am assuming that the epilogue is in fact a seventeen year-old's not very realistic, warm, romantic dream about his projected future. The haziness of the scene described (foggy, hazy) would match a dream. In addition, it is an extremely limited POV involving himself, Ginny, Ron and Hermione with their children going to Hogwarts (the most wonderful event of his own young life to date which would also support a dream interruption. He still has problems with Malfoy -- he has given him a boy named Scorpius -- sorry ... that is part of a real closure, a separate peace? In addition to the epilogue itself, those us who have trouble with this depiction of the future wonder if Rowlings herself believes this for Harry -- hero of the second battle of Hogwarts and the conqueror of LV -- an adoring WW awaits him when he wakes up from this sleep. She recently had the walls around her castle home extended skyward to ward off intruders, probably from the adoring public as well as the strange and the weird ones that litter our real world. Would Harry actually be given his peace, his desired normal life in the aftermath? I think not... But like her earlier counterpart and my favorite author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I suspect she is both tired of HP and needs to move on (plus she was committed to the seven book cycle - a strategic mistake that caused the ever-growing length of the last 3 works in the cannon.) My view (fantasy?) is that she has written in the epilogue to DH the equivalent of Doyle killing Sherlock Holmes at the Reichenbach Falls. Doyle eventually came to reject that ending mostly due to public pressure and so Holmes "returned" although diffent, less Holmesian in someways -- perhaps due to his victory over Moriarty, he lost his worthy adversary and thus his edge. So never fear, as it has beeen written -- the past is prologue, not "epilogue". There may be more fuel for the fire so those disappointed in the romantic resolutions. Gary B. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 16 17:10:05 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 17:10:05 -0000 Subject: Surprising Ships (was Re: Re; What is in the box In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177097 > Alla: > > Sigh. I wish ... I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon, LOL, > so I grew to love Sirius/Remus too. Sigh. Potioncat, picking herself off the floor. wiping her glasses and re- reading, yes it says "I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon" now quickly checking the name "> Alla:" What in the name of Merlin's left.....elbow---are you talking about? First, I'd like to know what ever gave you such an idea, and more importantly, why would you--Alla---want that ship? I can't imagine you'd want Snape in any ship! Potioncat, who understands that fandom has many interests and accepts the many different possible combinations of characters, but cannot imagine Sirius and Severus as so much as having a cup of tea in the same room. And is absoulutely gobsmacked that it was Alla who suggested it! From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 16 17:23:35 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 16 Sep 2007 17:23:35 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/16/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1189963415.43.30821.m36@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177098 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 16, 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 catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 16 21:11:45 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:11:45 -0000 Subject: SHIP: my Shipping Post Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177099 Nora liliput wrote in of Sirius/Remus: << Catlady and Alla, why? Do you see any hint of this? I am interested in knowing why there is so much fanfic about this matter. It has never came to my mind reading the books. >> When Remus found out that Sirius had set him up to be a murderer (the Prank), Moony readily forgave Padfoot. As in the Shrieking Shack, when each immediately forgave the other for thinking he had been the murderous traitor. For that forgiveness to come easily takes a lot of love. Love, which could explain why Remus didn't tell Dumbledore that the wanted murderer Black could turn into a dog to enter the castle through secret passages -- because his heart could never entirely believe that Sirius was a bad guy, because his heart couldn't endure to doom Sirius to death or the Dementor's Kiss. To me, that makes a lot more sense than being too ashamed to tell DD that the wanted murderer can turn into a big black dog. He wouldn't have had to tell DD that he had roamed loose as a werewolf with them, as he could vaguely hint that turning into a dog was something Sirius had learned after leaving Hogwarts. I think no one but the ESE!Lupin theorists doubted their love -- after all, they "embraced like brothers" -- but only argued that love doesn't have to be erotic/romantic, that it could instead be brotherly. Perfectly true, but I happen to LIKE romance and erotica. Anyway, as I can't have Remus, I'd rather no other woman had him. (As for Sirius, he used to be quite a slut with the witches -- 'faithful to you, Moony, in my own way'). It got a couple of boosts -- 'lie low at Lupin's' at the end of GoF, and "Sit down, Sirius.' and their joint Christmas present to Harry in OoP. Then Herself went and had Sirius leave Remus completely out of his will. All I can do with that is assume that Umbridge's laws prohibited werewolves from inheriting any property, or maybe from owning any property except the clothes on their backs. IIRC years ago when I had time to occasionally visit Fiction Alley, they had named the Sirius/Remus ship the SS Wolfstar. That's not a bad name, but I never applied for a position in the crew -- what would I be, anyway, Ship's Cat? That was a section called SCUSA "Self Contained Underwater Shipping Apparatus", where I never understood why Harry/Hermione was the SS Pumpkin Pie. Besides SS Wolfstar, I'd sail the SS Black and Silver despite not thinking it a very good name -- that was Snape and a Malfoy. Severus and Lucius, which I ship. Severus and Draco, which I also ship. I don't recall if it included Severus and Narcissa, which got a boost from "Spinner's End". Potioncat wrote in of Severus/Sirius: << cannot imagine Sirius and Severus as so much as having a cup of tea in the same room. >> Well, they had better grow up and get over it now, because they're in the same afterlife, maybe for eternity. (Marianne kiricat, "the *ghost*ship SB/RL" is so good!) << What in the name of Merlin's left.....elbow---are you talking about? First, I'd like to know what ever gave you such an idea >> Oh, the same argument used for Draco/Harry, Draco/Hermione, and Ron/Hermione -- that all those quarrels are a form of flirtation. I never believed the above argument, not even for Ron/Hermione, but I did wonder why Severus so desperately hated all the Marauders. Rather than because one of them stole his girl, could it be because one of them had rejected him directly? Rejection rankles. Well, Snape has always seemed the most self-suppressing character, the kind of person who could never ever bear to admit to himself that he felt a homosexual attraction, so that could be a reason to hate the person to whom he is attracted, to hate the person for making him feel something he really does not want to feel. So I thought it would be logical if he had a crush on Sirius or James, the ones that everyone (all the girls -- to me that's everyone :) ) had crushes on, and whichever one he had a crush on, he could be jealous of the other ... but it never worked right. It always seemed mechanical. Yeah, Sirius could have lured Severus under the Whomping Willow with suggestions of a secret assignation, but only if Sirius knew Severus felt that way, and if the adult Sirius knew that, the knowledge would have shown in his behavior. The only version that has a touch of life in it (vita-similitude, like verisimilitude?) would be if it were Remus that Severus had the crush on, and then his interest in monthly visits to the Shrieking Shack would have elements of wanting to rescue Remus from being abused and exploited by his 'friends' as well as of wanting to get James and Sirius into trouble ... but I can't imagine Snape ever having a crush on someone as self-effacing as Remus ... and if it were so, Remus never knew it (until maybe in the afterlife!). From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 21:30:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 21:30:42 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177100 > Pippin: > But it was just a great big scarlet fishy after all. :) We should have > known when it got left out of the CTTMNBN. Very intense, but > no life-changing consequences for anyone, except that it > guaranteed that there'd be fertile ground for misunderstandings > in the future and coldness between Snape and the ex-Marauders > even when they all knew they were on the same side. > Sirius was probably not thinking past the glorious moment > when Snape would wet himself. James probably *was* thinking > more about keeping his friends out of trouble than about > saving Snape. > > But that's all there was to it, IMO. No heroes, no > villains, just a bunch of kids with more time on their > hands than was good for them. ::sigh:: > > Sometimes we grownups forget how mental teenagers > can be. Alla: Oh yeah, I agree about it being a big scarlet fishy in JKR mind. I find **this** assessment of the prank to be actually quite agreeable and probably exactly what JKR intended ( except of course I think that James besides thinking of keeping his friends out of trouble, **was** also thinking of saving Snape). But I am still dying to know more about it for all the reasons I stated above AND because I just was not impressed about it being a red herring, you know? In a sense that my mind got it of course, but on emotional level, I did not. I do not know how explain it better, except just to say again - there were many things that other people wanted to know - more about James and Lily, other characters. I was **satisfied** with pretty much everything back story wise, but Prank just left me wanting more. > Potioncat, who understands that fandom has many interests and accepts > the many different possible combinations of characters, but cannot > imagine Sirius and Severus as so much as having a cup of tea in the > same room. And is absolutely gobsmacked that it was Alla who > suggested it! > Alla: Awwww, sorry to surprise you so dearest. :) I was pretty sure I mentioned several times in the past that Sirius/Snape was my all time favorite SHIP and Sirius/Remus was the second one. Moreover those SHIPS are the only ones I cared about. I mean, I love Trio and their romances, but it was like whatever - as long as they are happy at the end of the books, I am happy. And it actually only related to Harry and whoever he will end up with. I mean, I highly suspected Ginny, but I won't lie - I was not 100% sure of it. Especially when Luna was introduced. Ron and Hermione to me were a done deal since book 1 - period, end of story. So, anyways back to Sirius and his potential lovers, snort. To answer question number 1 ( or so I number it) - why would I want Snape in any SHIP, knowing how I feel about him. Well, I do **not** want Snape in any other SHIP first and foremost and actually right now I indeed would not want Snape in any SHIP, snort. I do not know if you read my post to JudySerenity ( I think) where (OOOPS, if you did not read it, you are probably due to another surprise) I said that Snape was my favorite character after book 1. But you know, I really was not kidding. I could not stand Snape's treatment of kids, but he had the most potential to be the character I usually love. To make a long story short my relationship with Snape's character evolved from love/hate to hate, but at some point in the series I really did have enough sympathy for him to want to see him in a happy relationship. Why would I want Snape/ Sirius? Simply - they had lots of sparks to me, and it is that "thin line from love to hate" attraction, to me anyways. No, I did not expect to get Sirius/Snape in canon obviously. But after handshake in GoF I really did expect them to have the relationship of comrades, two adults who were able to put aside the grudges of the past and work together. Ooops. Yes, I know that they were on the same side, I just expected them to be able to you know, as you said - have cup of tea in the same room, basically. After OOP obviously I simply hated Snape and hated him more in HBP, but I would still read fanfic with this ship, for the sake of old times. After DH, well probably not. It is funny, but if the character is taken in canon, it is much harder for me to buy AU SHIP. Funnily, I can still buy Sirius/ Remus and that brings us to the next question. Catlady: > > And what I would be looking for all through the manuscript is > anything > > that can be taken as evidence for the Sirius/Remus ship. > > > Alla: > > Sigh. I wish ... I knew I could not get Sirius/ Snape in canon, LOL, > so I grew to love Sirius/Remus too. Sigh. > Nora: Catlady and Alla, why? Do you see any hint of this? I am interested in knowing why there is so much fanfic about this matter. It has never come to my mind reading the books. Alla: Well, obviously we are not talking here about JKR intending it in canon either as we learned, but yeah, I believe that there were signs that could be interpreted like that. Since I started liking Snape/Sirius more, I had to take another look at Sirius/ Remus, so the most convincing to me were their dynamics in OOP. How Remus was always there, they gave presents together, etc. And of course "embraced like brothers" can be interpreted not only that way. And it is funny, while I cannot read Snape/Sirius any more, I will still happily read Sirius/ Remus, because JKR did not convince me much about Remus loving Tonks and she especially did not convince me that Sirius was not gay with those posters in his room. MAHAHAHAHAHAH. And what Catlady wrote about Sirius/Remus JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 22:27:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:27:27 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177101 Carol earlier: > > > Then again, JKR tells us that in SS/PS that three students are left to be Sorted, and those "three" students turn out to be Dean Thomas, Lisa Turpin, Ron Weasley, and Blaise Zabini (122), so we're presented quite early on with evidence that JKR can't count the fingers on one hand. > zanooda repsponded: > You know, Carol, this one maybe is not JKR's fault :-). I have both american and british editions of SS/PS, and Dean Thomas is only mentioned in the american edition, not in the british one. So originally there were really three kids left. I think that maybe american editors added Dean, but forgot to change the number from three to four :-). > > > > Carol, noting that she also can't remember whether the sorting Stool has three legs or four > znanooda: > It has four legs in PS, but three legs in PoA and GoF :-). > Carol responds: Somewhere, I read that the British editors eliminated the reference to Dean as being black because they didn't think it was important, but I didn't know they eliminated Dean himself. If they did edit him out, maybe they were trying to get the number down to three to match the text, not realizing that Dean would be a semi-important minor character, but that seems unlikely since he appears in the book. (It would have made more sense to eliminate Lisa Turpin, wouldn't it?) Also, if the American editors had added Dean because he's mentioned mentioned several times in the book and belongs in the scene, you'd think they would have changed "three" to "four"--and how would they know that Dean is black, a detail not mentioned elsewhere in the first book, IIRC? Carol, who meant that *JKR* can't remember how many legs the Sorting Stool has (and the continuity editors didn't catch the discrepancy) From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Sep 16 23:14:23 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:14:23 -0000 Subject: Sorting Stool (was Re: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177102 > Carol, who meant that *JKR* can't remember how many legs the Sorting > Stool has (and the continuity editors didn't catch the discrepancy) Potioncat: I always thought the Sorting Hat was the Magical object and the stool was any old seat that happened to be handy at the moment, grabbed in a rush and plopped down in front of the Head Table. From marion11111 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 23:28:10 2007 From: marion11111 at yahoo.com (marion11111) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:28:10 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177103 > Alla said: > > Since I started liking Snape/Sirius more, I had to take another look > at Sirius/ Remus, so the most convincing to me were their dynamics > in OOP. How Remus was always there, they gave presents together, etc. > > And of course "embraced like brothers" can be interpreted not only > that way. > marion11111; I haven't been on this list very long and am hopeless in searching archives, but I always thought that SHIP (Sirius/Lupin) started with the PoA movie. The exact quote you mentioned from the book was played out in the movie in a way that made people read more into it. That was a clumsy sentence, but you get my drift. And maybe the SHIP started before that, but that's been my understanding. If anyone who's been following the fansites long enough can say yes or no on this, that would be interesting to know. I laughed out loud in the OotP movie when Sirius is talking to Harry in a doorway and Lupin just appears behind him like the dutiful wife. Now, we know from the books that Lupin is at Grimmauld Place because he's unemployed and has nowhere else to live, but it just *looked* funny. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 16 23:28:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:28:23 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177104 lizzyben wrote: > > I can maybe offer one answer. In that scene, JKR wasn't interested > in examining the roots of mob violence, the dangers of scapegoating, > the need to balance security & protection for all the students. > > No, that scene was all about proving & *ranking* the virtue of each > of the Houses. JKR doesn't care about math, but she wrote that scene > w/mathematical precision - First, we are told in *exactly* which > order each House raised their wands, then, exactly which order the > Houses evacuated Hogwarts, finally, the exact ratio of > students that stayed behind from each House to fight the Death > Eaters. And unlike most of the math, these > ratios & ranking are actually consistent: Slytherin are scum, > Ravenclaws are sketchy (too independent), Hufflepuffs are loyal (but > still duffers), and Gryffindors are the BEST, the Elect, the most > noble & virtuous House. > > The soul scores are in: > HOGWARTS LEAVING - "Thank you, Miss Parkinson." said Professor > McGonagall in a clipped voice. "You will leave the Hall first with > Mr. Filch. If the rest of your House could follow." > Harry heard the grinding of the benches and then the sound of the > Slytherins trooping out on the other side of the Hall. > "Ravenclaws, follow on!" cried Professor McGonagall. > Slowly the four tables emptied." > > - Slytherins leave first, then Ravenclaws, then Hufflepuffs, then > Gryffindors. Leaving the battle is a bad thing, so can judge the > Houses by the Order in which they abandon Hogwarts. We can also tell > which Houses McGonegal doesn't like (Slyths, Ravenclaws), which is > another reliable marker of their lack of virtue. Carol responds: A technicality here. We're told more than once that the Gryffindor table is farthest from the doors of the Great Hall and the Slytherin table is the closest. The Hufflepuff table is next to the Gryffindor table, which would place the Ravenclaw table between the Slytherin and Hufflepuff tables, or second closest to the doors. Whatever McGonagall's faults in this scene (and I am *not* convinced that she handled it as well as possible--she *does* imply that Slytherins are all Voldemort loyalists who will follow Pansy's lead, but possibly she's just averting violence, as others have succested), she is evacuating the tables in the order of their closeness to the door: Slytherin, Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff, Gryffindor. It has nothing to do with the relative virtue of the houses. And, of course, the younger students from all four Houses are being evacuated in any case, regardless of whether they stood up at pointed their wands. What disturbs me in this scene is that the wands are not pointed at Pansy, which I could understand if not appreciate, but at Slytherin in general. No one is seeing the Slytherins as individuals capable of independent choice, and had any of them stood up, they'd have been regarded as traitors by their own House. If any had remained behind to fight, the other students and McGonagall would have assumed that they intended to fight for Voldemort. She was right to order Pansy to leave, but she ought to have told the students to sit down and offered the Houses a chance to unite against Voldemort rather than assuming the worst of the Slytherins. Then she should have evacuated the younger students by table, allowing any older students, including Slytherins who openly declared their loyalty to Hogwarts, to remain behind. Unfortunately, once the other students had pointed their wands at Slytherin as a House, the chances that any of them would want to stay with a group of students and an interim headmistress who regarded them as enemies were almost nil. Carol, who dislikes McGonagall's conduct from the comment about the "gallant" Crucio almost to the end of the book From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 17 00:43:18 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:43:18 -0000 Subject: Dark Book In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177105 Carol: > What disturbs me in this scene is that the wands are not pointed at > Pansy, which I could understand if not appreciate, but at Slytherin in > general. > Unfortunately, once the other students had pointed their wands at > Slytherin as a House, the chances that any of them would want to stay > with a group of students and an interim headmistress who regarded them > as enemies were almost nil. Jen: The book doesn't say wands were pointed at Pansy or all Slytherin students or in any direction. The text says, "Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves." (DH, chap. 31, p. 610, Am. ed.) The students are 'looking toward Pansy' and wands are starting to emerge. It seems like a very big deal to leave out if the wands were pointing directly at Pansy or Slytherin house because that changes the scene from what it's meant to be imo, the symbolic moment when the students of Hogwarts declared their intention to oppose Voldemort rather than hand over Harry in an attempt to save themselves. (I speculate that after the year they'd spent under DEs, most students realized it was folly to put their faith and safety in the hands of Voldemort and his followers.) Jen From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 00:54:08 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:54:08 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177106 James Casey wrote: > Ron Weasley... He is useless. And JK realized this while writting > this book. You can tell. When he leaves them JK and all of use > realise that there is nothing missing. He doesn't hurt them, other > than feelings, when he leaves. He had made no contributions in the > book, this or any other. And we know she sees this because upon his > return he is a totally different character. She makes a point of > stating it. He is decisive and helpfull. A complete change in his > character. Carol responds: I see Ron a bit differently. First, I disagree that he's useless (though he certainly does have his moods). With the exception of the fight with Harry in GoF (which is IMO partly Harry's fault) and the weeks in GoF when he's under the influence of the Horcrux, he's loyal and supportive of Harry. He has always wanted Harry to get together with Ginny (any resentment of their relationship by Ron is a figment of their imagination except in DH when he's protecting Ginny from getting her hopes up unrealistically). He's funny and he helps Harry out of some tight spots (the chess game in SS/PS; saving Harry's life in DH). He follows Harry to face the spiders, overcoming his greatest fear because his loyalty is stronger. It's his idea, not Harry's, to see Lockhart about the CoS. He suffers for Harry in PoA when he's dragged into the Shrieking Shack and tells Sirius Black that if he kills Harry, he'll have to kill them, too (IIRC, that line was given to Hermione in the film, but it's Ron's in the book). It's not accident that he, not Hermione, is the hostage Harry has to rescue in the Second Task. He's Harry's *best* friend, the one he would miss most. In OoP, he goes with Harry to the MoM without questioning whether it's sensible or not (that's Hermione's job). In HBP, he's again on Harry's side (rightly or wrongly) regarding the HBP's Potions book and he again fights the Death Eaters. In DH, Ron at last has to face his demons--insecurity and the jealousy of Harry that he has tried to suppress all these years. He fears that Hermione must prefer the Chosen One to his more ordinary best friend. Once the combination of frustration with the lack of a plan, fear for his family, jealousy, and the Horcrux drives him to leave Harry and Hermione, he instantly realizes his mistake, but he can't get back to them because of the Snatchers. But Dumbledore, knowing both his weakness and his strength, has provided him with a way back, and Ron proves his "valor, nerve, and chivalry" first by saving Harry from drowning and strangulation by the Horcrux, then symbolically destroys his own fears and insecurities by destroying the mocking figures within the Horcrux and the Horcrux itself. Later, he's secure enough to allow Hermione to destroy the cup Horcrux rather than insisting on doing it himself. IMO, Ron grows more clearly and dramatically than any other character in DH, and yet he remains himself from the moment Harry meets him until the epilogue nearly everyone except me seems to hate. Carol, realizing that she hasn't done Ron justice in this post and hoping that others will step up to defend him From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 01:38:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:38:59 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: <2795713f0709142137s3f65e524t86e295e0c44ec2ca@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177107 James Casey wrote: > > How could you not see Harry being a Horcrux after the flash back of that night as it is seen in Godric's Hollow? With all of the "can't live while the other survives" talk in the book you had to realize. > > Lynda: > > Nope. I didn't. I knew that he "could" be a horcrux and hoped that if JKR took that line she would do it in a way that would make me believe it, but I've read enough SF/Fantasy/Thriller/Horror that I did not see that he had to be a horcrux and I rather hoped he wouldn't be, to be honest. And yes, she did, in the end make it believable. > > Lynda Carol responds: Nor did I. First, we had been told that Horcruxes were deliberate creations and required an encasement spell, and, second, I didn't see how JKR could make harry's scar an accidental Horcrux, even getting around the encasement spell problem, without setting up an unresolveable dilemma: If Harry had a soul bit in himself, he couldn't kill or destroy Voldemort because Voldemort would still be immortal (at best, he'd be reduced to Vapor!mort again), and to destroy the soul bit, harry himself would have to die, making it impossible for him to kill Voldemort. The best solution to the dilemma that I could figure out was simultaneous AKs, and I didn't want Harry to use the Killing Curse because it was Voldemort's weapon and his own weapon was supposed to be love. At any rate, aside from following hard on the heels of the shocking Bathilda!Nagini incident, which raised new questions of its own, the Voldemort flashback (for me) chiefly served to show that Voldemort had gone to Godric's Hollow alone (no Peter the Rat accompanying him), the Fidelius Charm had already been broken while the Potters were still alive (by Peter's breach of faith), and James died wandless, rather than fighting heroically, as Voldie himself had told Harry in GoF. In short, there was nothing to convince me that Harry was a Horcrux and a lot to distract me from thinking about that hated theory. I don't think I believed the theory until Dumbledore told Snape in "The Prince's Tale" that Harry had a soul bit inside him (and even then, the term "Horcrux" wasn't used), at which point, I had to concede defeat. Carol, who did get some predictions right, but not that particular one From zgirnius at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 01:49:27 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 01:49:27 -0000 Subject: Peter and the Marauders (WAS Re: What's in the Box?) In-Reply-To: <1586539.1189630508030.JavaMail.root@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177108 > Bart: > First of all, while the canon is kind of self-contradictory on this, there APPEAR to be about 10 students in each house in each class (about 40 per year, about 280 students in the school). Given this, it is not unreasonable that the 4 boys were the only male students from their year in Gryffindor. zgirnius: Since some posters have objected to the 40-a-year suggestion...I would point out it is not necessary to your theory (which I also believe ). Harry, Ron, Seamus, Dean, and Neville were assigned their room, they did not choose it. If there were other Gryff boys we simply never met, they were assigned to another room or rooms. The rooms seem to typically have 5 occupants, but the odds that the number of boys in a given year is always evenly divisble by 5 is slim...so there is no reason that the four Marauders could not have been the four boys assigned to one room at the start of their first year. And the logic for including Peter would remain the same. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Mon Sep 17 01:22:22 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:22:22 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Defending Ron (was: Do we really get our closer?) Message-ID: <20070917112222.CUA17413@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177109 Carol: Carol, realizing that she hasn't done Ron justice in this post and hoping that others will step up to defend him Sharon: I agree with you Carol. Out of all the characters, Ron grew the most. Hi would have given his life in PS to help Harry get the stone, not to mention disguising himself as Goyle (or was it Crabbe?) in COS and risking discovery in the Slytherin common room. As well as all those other siutations mentioned by Carol where Ron stepped up to the plate, he was a truly loyal friend to both Harry and Hermione. He obviously adored Hermione from the end of PS and was always looking out for her, even if his dialogue didn't show it. Except for the argument in GOF 9and the bit in DH where he left momentarily -- and I say momentarily becuase he would have come back immediately if he could have), he stood by Harry in every adventure throughout the books. I believe Ron had almost as many demons as Harry. As we saw in the Locket scene in DH, he was always second best to Harry, he feared his mother wanted a girl instead of him and that in the end she preferred Harry and that Hermione did too (which I suspect is why he found it hard to make his move on her). He does some stupid things throughout the series such as falling for Lavender, but he is, after all, a teenager, with hormones, moods and all that goes with that.Considering his borhters and Ginny were always teasing him and laughing at him, he grew up to be a pretty brave young man. Understanding all these things, one thing I do fail to understand is what took Hermione so long to kiss him? Poor guys really must have thought she didn't like him, especially after all the hints he kept giving her. I would have thought Hermione was reflective enough to umderstand what was going on in Ron's head - -she certainly was smart enough to unravel Cho's feelings for Harry in OOP. It seems incinsistent to me that she wouldn't be able to do the same for Ron. No wonder he was insecure! Ginny, on the other hand, I feel to be the most shallow character, though not entirely without substance. Although she joins the DA and fights at the MOM, she tends to come across as a bit of a cheerleader who's only interested in boys etc. She is the baby of the family and only girl, so everyone dotes on her. She grew up with a lot of confidence and a strong personality, unlike Ron, who had to put up with a LOT from his family throughout his young life. Sharon, who absolutely loved the epilogue, in spite of the fact that it left out all the detail, becuase it fulfilled everything that had been developed throughout the series. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 02:34:57 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:34:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709161934t70ae4594o754ba099d1812270@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177110 Jen: The book doesn't say wands were pointed at Pansy or all Slytherin students or in any direction. The text says, "Then the Hufflepuffs stood, and almost at the same moment, the Ravenclaws, all of them with their backs to Harry, all of them looking toward Pansy instead, and Harry, awestruck and overwhelmed, saw wands emerging everywhere, pulled from beneath cloaks and from under sleeves." (DH, chap. 31, p. 610, Am. ed.) The students are 'looking toward Pansy' and wands are starting to emerge. It seems like a very big deal to leave out if the wands were pointing directly at Pansy or Slytherin house because that changes the scene from what it's meant to be imo, the symbolic moment when the students of Hogwarts declared their intention to oppose Voldemort rather than hand over Harry in an attempt to save themselves. (I speculate that after the year they'd spent under DEs, most students realized it was folly to put their faith and safety in the hands of Voldemort and his followers.) Debbie: I reread this scene last night and came to the same conclusion you did. It also occurred to me that Pansy was a prefect back in OOP and that as a 7th year prefect (or, more likely, Head Girl considering that Voldemort was in control of Hogwarts) was a leader and authority figure in her House. We also don't know what Pansy's behavior was like throughout the year, but based on what we've seen of her in the past I'd bet she would have rather relished dishing out punishment, too, or at the very least watching it being dished out. If that's the case, I couldn't imagine any Slytherin taking the risk of overtly dissenting from her attempt to capitulate to Voldemort, and certainly supporting Harry in that moment would have endangered them. As a result, requiring all of the Slytherins to evacuate was for their own safety. By the same token, given Slytherin's status as the favorite house under the Voldemort regime, and the evident enthusiasm of some members of Slytherin for Dark punishment, would you trust them enough to let them fight? I don't care for McGonagall's reaction to Harry's Crucio, but I think as a wartime decision, asking all the Slytherins to leave was a reasonable one. Debbie whose computer has lately been eating her drafts before she could post them [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 17 02:49:54 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:49:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peter and the Marauders (WAS Re: What's in the Box?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EDEB52.1020801@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177111 zgirnius: > Since some posters have objected to the 40-a-year suggestion...I would > point out it is not necessary to your theory (which I also believe > ). Harry, Ron, Seamus, Dean, and Neville were assigned their room, > they did not choose it. If there were other Gryff boys we simply never > met, they were assigned to another room or rooms. The rooms seem to > typically have 5 occupants, but the odds that the number of boys in a > given year is always evenly divisble by 5 is slim...so there is no > reason that the four Marauders could not have been the four boys > assigned to one room at the start of their first year. And the logic > for including Peter would remain the same. Bart: I did point out that the 40 per year theory only increased the probability that they were roommates. And I have, as I said, seen people keep other people in thrall through the basic message of, "you're worthless, nobody wants you, you're lucky that I will put up with you", I recognized it in Peter. The only difference I can see is that I don't think James and Sirius, or even Lupin, had any idea what they were doing to Peter. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 17 03:16:27 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:16:27 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177112 Carol: > In short, there was nothing to convince me that Harry was a Horcrux > and a lot to distract me from thinking about that hated theory. I > don't think I believed the theory until Dumbledore told Snape in "The > Prince's Tale" that Harry had a soul bit inside him (and even then, > the term "Horcrux" wasn't used), at which point, I had to concede defeat. > > Carol, who did get some predictions right, but not that particular one Jen: I just realized we never heard a peep from Tiger Patronus about the prediction contest! Oh well, some of the questions didn't even appear in DH - did we even find out head boy/girl during year 7? No late-in-life magic either *glares at JKR*..... So, here's a chance to impress each other with our awe-inspiring predictions and mutter and grumble about predictions JKR so *obviously* would have used if she'd been creative enough to think of them herself. ;) To get the ball rolling.....my two biggest failed predictions, the ones I wrote about ad nauseum, OH-so-certain I was on the right track *sniff sniff*: 1) The final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort would take place in the locked room, where Harry's soul piece (not a Horcrux but still a soul piece, only partial credit ) would be removed. Voldemort would then die in some fancy magical way JKR figured out. 2) Lily would be crucially important in her own right (instead of connected to Snape) and the symbolism of Harry's and Lily's eyes would be about Harry learning forgiveness as he connected to his mom and his past. Plus, Lily worked in the lcoked room at the DOM. My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken straight from the Prediction contest (throw out that first line ): 3. Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor. Spending his life defeating Dark Lords will be rooted in his past, a trauma in his own family which he was replaying when he drank the potion in the cave. Jen, realizing she won't be offered the Divination position at Hogwarts anytime soon..... From dossett at lds.net Mon Sep 17 03:22:46 2007 From: dossett at lds.net (rtbthw_mom) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:22:46 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177113 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "marion11111" wrote: > > > > Alla said: > > > > Since I started liking Snape/Sirius more, I had to take another look > > at Sirius/ Remus, so the most convincing to me were their dynamics > > in OOP. How Remus was always there, they gave presents together, etc. > > > > And of course "embraced like brothers" can be interpreted not only > > that way. > > > > marion11111; > I haven't been on this list very long and am hopeless in searching archives, but I always > thought that SHIP (Sirius/Lupin) started with the PoA movie. The exact quote you > mentioned from the book was played out in the movie in a way that made people read > more into it. That was a clumsy sentence, but you get my drift. > > And maybe the SHIP started before that, but that's been my understanding. If anyone > who's been following the fansites long enough can say yes or no on this, that would be > interesting to know. > > I laughed out loud in the OotP movie when Sirius is talking to Harry in a doorway and > Lupin just appears behind him like the dutiful wife. Now, we know from the books that > Lupin is at Grimmauld Place because he's unemployed and has nowhere else to live, but it > just *looked* funny. > Pat: Never really got on the SHIPs, just decided to see where they went, but my 10-year-old daughter tonight had an interesting observation: her comment was that thinking about Hagrid's father marrying a giantess was "really gross!" We agreed that Madame Maxim's parent's situation was the same! Pat From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 03:27:22 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:27:22 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177114 > Jen: > To get the ball rolling.....my two biggest failed predictions, the ones > I wrote about ad nauseum, OH-so-certain I was on the right track *sniff > sniff*: > > My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken straight from the > Prediction contest (throw out that first line ): > Alla: Heee, the biggest failed one is of course you know - SNAPE's loyalties and the fact that Dumbledore did order Snape to kill him and it was **planned**. OY. And that prank night would be more significant too. Honestly on the top of my head do not remember any more BIG failed ones, I am sure I will be reminded if I forgot something important. Closest one - hmmmm, of course Harry experiencing some sort of temporary death and coming back, the belief that he may be a Horcrux. The next one is not really a prediction, since I did not mind House unity on certain conditions, but the belief in Slytherin not being , you know, widely misunderstood and prejudiced against. Oh yeah, have plenty of posts over the years to support that I did argued that three years ago, hehe. The other one is also a belief that I did not want to come, but was plenty sure after HBP that it is coming - LOLLYPOPS I mean. Cannot remember anything else now, maybe tomorrow Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 03:54:17 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:54:17 -0000 Subject: Neville in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177115 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > > Imagine for a moment that you answer your door bell > to find JKR waiting for you. She has a huge rather > battered box in her arms which she drops just inside > the door. "This is for you," she says and leaves >before you can gather your senses. > > You open the box to discover page after page of neatly > written notes and entire sections of typed manuscript. bboyminn: Among other things, I want to know what was happening to Neville while Harry and Co were off on their camping trip. Consider Neville and Ginny plotting to break into the Head's Office and steal the Sword. What must that conversation have been like? Pretty bold and ballsy move if you ask me. Also, notice when Harry arrives, it is Neville everyone gathers round and looks to for direction. Neville went from less than a follower to the leader. I've said before that while Harry and Co were off on their adventures, the rest of Gryffindor was sleeping snuggly in their beds. Apparently Neville has finally woke up and is no longer content being comfy warm in his bed. Now he is taking action and living adventures of his own. I suspect if the book hadn't already been so long, we might have gotten a glimpse of that. Still, it Neville's seventh year at Hogwarts would have probably made a pretty good story on its own. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Sun Sep 16 23:15:36 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:15:36 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: <20070917091536.CTZ98882@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177116 James Casey said: >>How did Sirius turn into a dog in Azkaban? Wouldn't he need a wand like Pettigrew did? Maybe not...<< CathyD said: I have a problem with this as well. Now that we *know* you must have a wand to apparate, surely you would also need one for the Animagus transformation that took two of the cleverest students in the school three years to learn? Apparently, though, it is not so. Sharon: Dumbledore performed magic without a wand on several occasions, for example, in OOP when he dissapears from his office with Fawkes when the Ministry try to cart him off to Azkaban. Well at least there is no mention of him using his wand, he just disappears. Also in PS, McGonagal transfigures into a cat and back again without a wand. It is conceivable that very powerful wizards may perform magic without wands. There's nothing in the books that I recall that says it's impossible. Sirius had a long time in Azkaban to work out how to do it. Sharon. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Mon Sep 17 12:00:14 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:00:14 -0400 Subject: Requirement for wands Was Re: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: <001901c7f922$4ecc61d0$95c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 177117 Sharon said: >>Dumbledore performed magic without a wand on several occasions, for example, in OOP when he dissapears from his office with Fawkes when the Ministry try to cart him off to Azkaban. Well at least there is no mention of him using his wand, he just disappears. Also in PS, McGonagal transfigures into a cat and back again without a wand.<< IMO there is no reason to believe that both Dumbledore and McGonagall did not have their wands in their possession at the time the magic was performed. Just as you don't actually use your wand to Apparate you just have to have it with you in order to do so. Besides, in OotP, it wasn't Dumbledore who was using magic...it was Fawkes' magic at work when they both disappeared from the office. Just as Dobby doesn't need a wand to Apparate - it is House-elf magic at work. I have no doubt whatsoever, that McGonagall has her wand in the pocket of her robes when she transforms in PS. She would be a foolish witch to travel without it. JMO, YMMV. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 17 12:37:58 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:37:58 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177118 Jen: > I just realized we never heard a peep from Tiger Patronus about > the prediction contest! > So, here's a chance to impress each other with our awe-inspiring > predictions and mutter and grumble about predictions JKR so > *obviously* would have used if she'd been creative enough to think > of them herself. ;) SSSusan: Oh, I'll play! My biggest failed prediction was that we would discover what happened in the missing 24 hours, and that it definitely involved Snape doing something additional to protect Harry before his deposit at the Dursleys. I was convinced he had used his expertise to offer up an additional protection and that this was one reason DD was so sure he could trust Snape. Sigh.... Another "nope" was that I was convinced there was a reason DD had not told the WW, loudly & clearly, that Lord Voldemort was Tom Riddle. I couldn't quite understand why he wouldn't have broadcast that, since the more people thought of Voldy as "Tom," I think the weaker it would have made him. The only reason I could think of for this was that DD needed to *protect* someone and that revealing that Voldy was Riddle would have hurt someone he cared about. (I thought Minerva the most likely.) Oh, well! Jen: > My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken straight from > the Prediction contest (throw out that first line ): > > 3. Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor. Spending his life defeating > Dark Lords will be rooted in his past, a trauma in his own family > which he was replaying when he drank the potion in the cave. SSSusan: Good one! My closest one, also taken straight from my Prediction Contest entry, was this: 5. Harry will believe he has to sacrifice himself for those he loves, he will be prepared to do so, he will in fact believe he is in the processing of doing so... but he will end up not having to do so. Siriusly Snapey Susan, back to posting for the first time in ages From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 17 12:49:06 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:49:06 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177119 Potioncat here: Missing moments are so much fun. I've read over these two posts below and given them some thought. Alla, I must have missed any post that ever mentioned your liking for Snape. One can imagine that your vehement opposition to him now is a result of having so esteemed him before. (Sorry, I've been reading Austin again.) >>>Catlady wrote in post #177099 >>>Well, Snape has always seemed the most self-suppressing character, the kind of person who could never ever bear to admit to himself that he felt a homosexual attraction, so that could be a reason to hate the person to whom he is attracted, to hate the person for making him feel something he really does not want to feel. >>>Alla wrote in post #177100 >>>Why would I want Snape/ Sirius? Simply - they had lots of sparks to me, and it is that "thin line from love to hate" attraction, to me anyways. Potioncat: So, it could go like this as a canon-based missing moment from OoP? Christmas break: Snape comes to 12 GP to inform Potter of the Occlumency lessons. There's the bit of silly wand waving and eyes meet. Legilimency happens and Snape realizes a reciprocal feeling on Black's part. The relationship develops off page. Umbridge's office: Harry's outburst, "He's got Padfoot" communicates strongly to Snape who has a personal reason to find out if Sirius is safe. Later, he sends word that Potter is missing. Snape insists Black stay at 12 GP, not as a taunt, but because he wants Sirius to be safe. Snape knows what LV might intend for this particular Black. HBP: Snape's smooth recognition to Bella that she killed Black may appear to be a compliment, but is really Snape's own way of saving he knows who to blame. Interesting, yes. I can see it. Had things gone better, had Sirius not died, we might have had a scene when Harry comes to stay with Sirius over the summer and discovers Snape is his co-Godfather. That would not have been pretty. Well, JKR certainly didn't intend this, no matter how well it can be made to fit. ;-) Of course, it does a great job of explaining how Snape knew about Lily's letter, which now has the double power of both having belonged to Sirius and being written by Lily. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Mon Sep 17 12:37:28 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:37:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177120 In a message dated 9/16/2007 1:37:01 A.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: We all know that Harry did not die because his > > blood was running in Voldemort. That kept them > > connected. But then, when voldemort died,he still > > had Harry's blood. So, the thing which connected > > them was still there. So, how could he die? I think it was because while Voldemort had Harry's blood, Harry didn't have any of Voldemort's blood. True he had the soul bit BUT when Voldemort AK'd hin in the forest he killed the 'container' that held the bit. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From c_and_s_live at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 12:26:44 2007 From: c_and_s_live at yahoo.com (James Casey) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 12:26:44 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177121 Have any of you read the first ending that JK said was not fitting together? In this one she lets us know what has become of our characters such as thier jobs in latter life? I don't want to be a spoiler on this, though myself was dying to read it as soon as I found out that the ending that left me so wanting was actually not the original. Now I will tell you that in this alternate you still do not get the closer you will seek. I think that may not be possible outside seven more books of adventure! The only thing still not mentioned in the alternate is headmaster at Hogwarts, I still assume it is McGonagall. I was interested in your views on this. I have not seen any mention of it yet. James Casey From c_and_s_live at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 13:56:59 2007 From: c_and_s_live at yahoo.com (James Casey) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:56:59 -0000 Subject: Not kill Potter? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177122 I believe the only reason not to kill Potter is to bring him back. So not to do as Doyle and kill your hero then have to bring him back. I know that she (JKR) says there will never be another story with Harry as the main character but what if he takes the position as a Dumbledore? I think she may have thought this thru and decided she could not kill him off. Insperation could stike at any moment and if it does she couldn't have Harry dead! I feel by leaving Harry alive she leaves too much room for hope!!! As much as I would hate to see it happen I would love for it too. By that I mean go the George Lucas road and give us the prequals! Let us go thru the original battles. The first rise of LV. I would read it. There is so much room for adventure down that road after all. Still so much we could not see coming even knowing the final outsome. There's enough room for twist and turns to keep me in the dark and surprised. Not to mention: There were dark wizards before LV so it stands to reason that there will be more. James Casey From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 17 14:23:27 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:23:27 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177123 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" wrote: > > Have any of you read the first ending that JK said was not fitting > together? In this one she lets us know what has become of our > characters such as thier jobs in latter life? I don't want to be a > spoiler on this, though myself was dying to read it as soon as I found > out that the ending that left me so wanting was actually not the > original. Now I will tell you that in this alternate you still do not > get the closer you will seek. I think that may not be possible outside > seven more books of adventure! The only thing still not mentioned in > the alternate is headmaster at Hogwarts, I still assume it is > McGonagall. I was interested in your views on this. I have not seen any > mention of it yet. Geoff: It's not really an alternate ending. What JKR has done is to expand a little on what she wrote in the book giving slightly more detail about Harry, Ron and Hermione and then something about Luna, Neville and Hogwarts. She does say, however, that nineteen years on, McGonagall is NOT the Headteacher. The relevant article can be reached at: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19959323/ From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Mon Sep 17 14:22:31 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:22:31 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177124 > Jen: > > I just realized we never heard a peep from Tiger Patronus about > > the prediction contest! > > > So, here's a chance to impress each other with our awe-inspiring > > predictions and mutter and grumble about predictions JKR so > > *obviously* would have used if she'd been creative enough to think > > of them herself. ;) > > > SSSusan: > Oh, I'll play! My biggest failed prediction was that we would > discover what happened in the missing 24 hours, and that it > definitely involved Snape doing something additional to protect Harry > before his deposit at the Dursleys. I was convinced he had used his > expertise to offer up an additional protection and that this was one > reason DD was so sure he could trust Snape. Sigh.... Hickengruendler: My biggest failed prediction was Evil!Scrimgeour. I suspected him ever since I knew nothing but his name in OotP, because Tonks said, that he was asking funny questions. His somewhat incompetent behaviour in HBP confirmed my suspicion, but alas, it wasn't meant to be. > > Jen: > > My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken straight from > > the Prediction contest (throw out that first line ): > > > > 3. Dumbledore is Heir of Gryffindor. Spending his life defeating > > Dark Lords will be rooted in his past, a trauma in his own family > > which he was replaying when he drank the potion in the cave. > > SSSusan: > 5. Harry will believe he has to sacrifice himself for those he > loves, he will be prepared to do so, he will in fact believe he is > in the processing of doing so... but he will end up not having to do > so. > > Siriusly Snapey Susan, > back to posting for the first time in ages > Hickengruendler: My best one, also taken from the Prediction contest: "2. Even if the Tiara [in the Room of Requirement, which I guessed as a Horcrux in the Horcrux question] mentioned above isn't a Horcrux, at least one Horcrux will be hidden in Hogwarts, probably in the Room of Requirement. Voldemort, who can't stop the Trio destroying his other Horcruxes, decides to attack the castle, both, because he wants to protect the Horcrux hidden there, and because he wants to take over the castle anyway. The final battle will be on Hogwarts' grounds, with most characters we know getting involved." And I think, that I deserve full marks on this one. ;-) Hickengruendler From stevejjen at earthlink.net Mon Sep 17 14:43:23 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:43:23 -0000 Subject: Defending Ron (was: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: <20070917112222.CUA17413@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177125 > Sharon: > I believe Ron had almost as many demons as Harry. > As we saw in the Locket scene in DH, he was always > second best to Harry, he feared his mother wanted > a girl instead of him and that in the end she > preferred Harry and that Hermione did too (which I > suspect is why he found it hard to make his move > on her). Jen: That was a emotional scene, wasn't it? I was a little shocked to realize the level of conflict going on underneath Ron's funny exterior, the problems he brushed away to be a good friend, brother and son. At least that's how I see him now, having underestimated him myself throughout the series! The Horcrux amplified his feelings but it was clear all were his own inadequacies and fears. Loyal to a fault, brave, funny, willing to pitch in whenever he's needed - he has so many good qualities that often get pushed aside as the one nobody notices when Harry is around, or Hermione, or Fred, George....etc. etc. I think of Charlie as the brother most like Ron even though there's not much to go on. He seems like a guy quietly going about his business, maybe more independent than Ron because he's not as much of a follower. One of the first posts I read when joining this group was a description of the Trio as Mind, Heart and Soul with Ron exemplifying the Heart (although there were counterarguments of course lol, Ron as the soul I believe). That image stuck with me as I read the next couple of books and it still fits very well. Well, Hermione as the Mind is hard to dispute anyway. ;) Sharon: > Understanding all these things, one thing I do > fail to understand is what took Hermione so long > to kiss him? Poor guys really must have thought > she didn't like him, especially after all the > hints he kept giving her. I would have thought > Hermione was reflective enough to umderstand what > was going on in Ron's head - -she certainly was > smart enough to unravel Cho's feelings for Harry > in OOP. It seems incinsistent to me that she > wouldn't be able to do the same for Ron. No > wonder he was insecure! Jen: You know, this fit for me because Hermione acts so superior to the guys all the time as part of her regular characterization. I really think she was trying to decide if Ron was worthy of a kiss!! That moment when Ron sympathizes with Kreacher makes him finally good enough in her eyes. That's how I read it anyway. That negative part of her characterization is eye-rolling to me yet it fits for someone as smart as she is: being a little too sure of herself, acting superior and arrogant at times - it's a downside to her intelligence. Plus, for all her hanging around with Harry and Ron, sometimes she doesn't get guys at ALL. Not saying I'm superior in this area since I often don't get my DH and son hehe, but I felt like JKR wrote this realistically into Hermione's character to have two best male friends and then be clueless at the same time about things like Quidditch, the Potion book, the Firebolt, etc. Jen, who thinks Hermione makes a good character but might be pretty scary as a person. ;) From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 17 15:48:55 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 11:48:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp Message-ID: <23429133.1190044135591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177126 From: rtbthw_mom >Never really got on the SHIPs, just decided to see where they went, >but my 10-year-old daughter tonight had an interesting observation: >her comment was that thinking about Hagrid's father marrying a >giantess was "really gross!" We agreed that Madame Maxim's parent's >situation was the same! Bart: I kind of wondered about the, well, physical problems involved. I guess JKR is a Freudian. Perhaps some sort of transfiguration spell? One must assume that Hagrid's mother was, for her race, a genius. Either that or Hagrid's parents got VERY drunk one night. There are any number of ways a wizard could get involved with giants; scholarly studies, being some sort of official dealing with interaction between wizards and giants, etc. There were numerous hints that Hagrid was smarter than he appeared on the surface; he certainly was depicted on not only having an ecyclopedic knowledge of magical creatures, but also an ability to work with them (such as the implied development of the blast ended skrewts, which, to all appearances, WERE Ministry sanctioned, as they were used in the tri-Wizard torunament). It's certainly clear that children of giant parents aren't necessarily lower in intelligence; in general, you have to have SOME intelligence to be a headmistress of a major school. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 17 16:07:49 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:07:49 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177127 My biggest failed prediction is that Harry didn't die. I do wonder if JKR was ever tempted to write only 704 pages instead of 759; suppose the last chapter was chapter 24 and the entire Potter story ended with the words: "He saw the mouth move and a flash of green light, and everything was gone." If she had done that there would have been riots in the streets, but I'll bet JKR fantasized about doing exactly that. My second biggest failed prediction is that Percy turned out to be yet another (yawn) good Weasley. I still think JKR dropped the ball on this sub thread. Suppose that instead of Harry stupidly verbalizing the name "Voldemort" and getting everyone carted off to the Malfoy Manner Percy had betrayed their location to He Who Must Not Be Named. Fratricide is much more interesting than a slip of the tongue. As it is I really don't understand why JKR invented Percy, maybe she got cold feet and decided to play it conventionally. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 16:27:19 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:27:19 -0000 Subject: Dark Book. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177128 Carol earlier: > > > Dumbledore could have gone the way of Gellert Grindelwald Eggplant responded: > It could be argued that Gellert Grindelwald was also redeemed in book 7, he tried to stop Voldemort by lying about the Elder Wand. Carol again: Actually, I agree with you here. I was talking about the younger Grindelwald, who was tempted to use his power to rule Muggles "for the greater good." I agree, based on what DD says in "King's Cross" about hoping and believing that Grindelwald felt remorse, that he had some sort of redemption in the end. At any rate, however many people he killed (and it must have been a large number), he had evidently not made any Horcruxes (another of my predictions gone wrong!), so his soul didn't end up as a maimed and mutilated baby. Hard to say how someone like that would spend eternity. BTW, I rather liked the fearless, toothless old man taunting and defying Voldemort to the last even though he, too, had been a Dark wizard and mass murderer (not to mention all the people he had imprisoned and, presumably, tortured). Still, unlike Voldie, he wasn't afraid of death, and he knew what the Hallows were, so he'd have known better than to put part of his soul into a Horcrux. (How he knew who Voldie was is unclear. Was he allowed to read the newspaper in his cell?) And I wonder what went wrong to turn that brilliant, merry-faced boy into a Dark wizard. It can't be Durmstrang alone. Durmstrang produced Viktor Krum--and Durmstrang expelled Gellert Grindelwald. He must have done something really bad, far worse than whatever Mulciber attempted on Mary Whatshername. Carol earlier: > > Not a single Slytherin student fights for Voldemort > Eggplant: > Crabbe and Goyle do. Carol again: I meant, not a single Slytherin goes into battle to fight on voldie's side despite Voldie's lie to Lucius. All of them, even the older ones, were evacuated. Crabbe and Goyle slip out of line and Draco follows them (IIRC, to make sure that they don't kill or torture Harry). I don't recall Goyle casting a single spell; it's all Crabbe, who at first intends to capture Harry and then decides he wants to kill people, starting with Hermione. But they're not in the battle fighting on Voldemort's side, which is what McGonagall (mistakenly, IMO) believes or fears that the Slytherins in general intend to do. Carol earlier: > > Draco stops Crabbe from killing or Crucioing Harry. Eggplant: > Because of Voldemort's orders. Carol again: That's the reason he states, true, but Snape used the same reason to stop carrow from torturing Harry in HBP, and we know now that Snape was protecting Harry. I don't think Harry shares your view, or he wouldn't have risked his life to save Draco (who, in turn, saves Goyle with Ron's reluctant help). I realize that the passage is open to interpretation, but I see Draco throughout DH as a most reluctant DE who no longer wants to hurt people. Notice how many times he prevents Crabbe from hurting Harry. If his goal were to capture Harry and turn him in to Voldemort, he would simply have Stunned him. (Another reason he's in the RoR, I think, is to get his wand back, which, of course, doesn't happen. I wonder if, after it's all over, Harry returns Draco's wand to him. He doesn't need it, after all.) > Carol earlier: > > the narrator ceases to be unreliable. No more comments about Snape as the man Harry hated. > Eggplant: > I don't believe the narrator was ever unreliable, at one time Harry did hate Snape as much as he hated Voldemort. > Carol again: Certainly Harry hated Snape, but that doesn't make the narrator reliable, as I've illustrated repeatedly in earlier posts. Take "He would never forgive Snape. Never" in OoP or "Snape was going to Crucio him into insanity" (HBP). Neither statement is true; Harry does forgive Snape, and it's Carros, not Snape, who's Crucioing Harry (Snape stops the Crucio long before Harry reaches insanity). This view of Snape, which is both Harry's and the narrator's because the narrator generally reflects Harry's pov, continues into DH until "The Prince's Tale," in which the shift is so subtle that we barely see it. Harry, the narrator, and the reader all understand Snape at the same time as they learn the truth that JKR knew the whole time: Snape is Dumbledore's man, not Voldemort's, protecting Harry because he loved Harry's mother and killing DD on DD's own orders (which is not to say that the chapter isn't open to interpretation--of course, it is). The point is, once Harry understands and forgives Snape, any further statements about Snape from either Harry or the narrator reflect JKR's own view of him. There's no longer a clear distinction between author and narrator (except that the narrator is still limited to Harry's pov) because the narrator and Harry see as JKR sees, at least with regard to Snape (and Draco and the Elder Wand). Carol: > > No more assertions that Dumbledore betrayed Harry. > Eggplant: > And there can be little doubt that Dumbledore did betray Harry, he had to for the greater good. Carol again: I disagree that he "betrayed" Harry, which is Harry's bitter view as he prepares to sacrifice himself. He has to put aside that view as he puts aside revenge and face Voldemort with nothing but love in his heart. (It's interesting that DD is not one of the loved ones that Harry calls with the Resurrection Stone; I think he's forgiven DD but still thinks he's betrayed him at that point. He accepts Snape's view that Harry is a pig to the slaughter." However, DD knows about the shared drop of blood, which will not let Harry die while Voldie lives, and he hopes or believes that the AK will kill only the soul bit and not Harry himself. When Harry and Dead!DD meet in King's Cross and Harry learns the truth, he no longer sees DD as betraying him (though he doesn't deny that he's been manipulated). What DD apologizes for, and Harry quite willingly forgives, is not fully trusting Harry and telling him the truth (DH Am. ed. 713). And later, when he knows the full story, with all its revelations of DD's human frailty, Harry lloks up at DD and smiles: [H]e could not help himself. How could he remain angry with Dumbledore now?" (720). "Betray" is a strong word. It's what Peter Pettigrew did to his friends, revealing the Secret that would lead to their deaths (and, as he and LV thought, to Harry's death, too). DD doesn't betray Harry; he merely conceals information so that he will willingly sacrifice himself and destroy the Horcrux through sacrificial love without dying himself. Carol earlier: > > naming his second son for two > > flawed but brilliant headmasters > > Yes, it shows that Harry has forgiven both of them. Carol: My point exactly. But he's not forgiving Snape for being a loyal Death Eater who murdered Dumbledore on LV's orders, which is the view he had of Snape until he entered the Pensieve in "The Prince's Tale." He's forgiving the man he misunderstood and mistakenly hated all these years. He's forgiving the eavesdropping and forgiving or forgetting the detentions and docked points because those things no longer matter. What matters is Snape's courage and loyalty to the man who treated him much as he treated Harry, revealing only as much as thought needed to be revealed. Snape lied and spied and risked his life for Dumbledore despite not knowing the full truth; he protected Harry for Lily's sake. And, to Harry, that makes all the difference. And he's not forgiving Dumbledore for "betraying" him. He's forgiving him for not telling him the full truth--and for being a flawed human being with a weakness for power and foolish enough to think that he could put on the ring Hallow and bring Ariana back. Harry has not merely forgiven them, as he seems to have forgiven Draco. He admires them and honors them by naming his second son after them. Their virtues outweigh their weaknesses in his mind and they are both admirable in their different ways. Even if he has the twelve children that Trelawney predicted, I doubt very much whether any of them will be named Tom or Peter or Bellatrix. > Carol earlier: > > We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the Gryffindor bullies. > Eggplant: > There may be some truth in that. James must have had some good qualities because so many people we admire say nice things about him, and Lilly (a very good person) did marry him; but that's not what we readers actually see, all his hypothetical good acts seem to happen off page. Carol: Exactly. The schoolboy James is exactly what he was revealed to be in OoP, and it can't be the so-called Prank that matured him because the werewolf incident occurred before SWM (as we know because Lily refers to it in their last conversation as already having happened though she doesn't know what "toerag" James rescued Severus from). We can only suppose that being appointed Head Boy and wanting to impress Lily stopped him from hexing people in the hallways (an confrontations with Severus occurred out of her sight). And becoming an Order member and family man would have ended any moonlight excursions with the werewolf. Still, it would have been nice to see James heroically fighting Voldie as Voldie himself said he did in GoF rather than idiotically running to the door without his wand. We get to see him laughing and making smoke rings with his wand, but somehow we never get the transformation from bully James to loving father James. He remains, for me, one of the most unsatisfactorily drawn characters in the book. I can only suppose that it's enough for Harry to know that his father loved him (and that Lily, whom he knows to be good, came to love James enough to marry him). Also, Harry saw him come out of the wand in GoF, so maybe that's the image of his father that remains in his mind. In the end, James, like Snape and DD, is forgiven his human weaknesses and has one of Harry's sons named after him. And, most likely, that son's middle name is Sirius since Sirius Black, like James and DD, loved Harry but was a seriously flawed human being. Carol, just responding point by point with no particular main idea to this post From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Mon Sep 17 16:57:12 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:57:12 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177129 marion11111; > I haven't been on this list very long and am hopeless in searching > archives, but I always thought that SHIP (Sirius/Lupin) started > with the PoA movie. The exact quote you mentioned from the book > was played out in the movie in a way that made people read more > into it. That was a clumsy sentence, but you get my drift. > > And maybe the SHIP started before that, but that's been my > understanding. If anyone who's been following the fansites long > enough can say yes or no on this, that would be interesting to know. SSSusan: It definitely started long before the PoA movie. :) Here are a few brief mentions from January 2001: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/9058 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/9161 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/10037 There was even a new poll from Jan. '01, that Rita (Catlady) remarked upon in the following post, which contained Sirius-Lupin as a SHIP option: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/10057 I distinctly remember watching PoA the first time and chuckling to myself over that 'bickering like an old married couple' line of Movie! Snape's, thinking, "THAT'S gonna fuel those fires!!" Also, one of my favorite fanfics (I don't read many, but this one I've read several times), Arabella & Zsenya's "After the End," was put out just before OotP was published in summer '03, and the Remus/Sirius SHIP was prominent in it. In fact, I remember telling myself that if I didn't like how JKR played out the series, I'd just make AtE 'my' end of the series because I liked it so much and because Sirius was still alive & with Remus. Since the PoA movie came out in June 2004, I think it's pretty clear that the Sirius/Remus SHIP was alive and very well long before that. Siriusly Snapey Susan From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 17 17:04:06 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:04:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] RE: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: <19344944.1190048646214.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177130 >Sharon: >Dumbledore performed magic without a wand on >several occasions, for example, in OOP when he >dissapears from his office with Fawkes when the >Ministry try to cart him off to Azkaban. Well at >least there is no mention of him using his wand, >he just disappears. Also in PS, McGonagal >transfigures into a cat and back again without a >wand. It is conceivable that very powerful wizards >may perform magic without wands. There's nothing >in the books that I recall that says it's >impossible. Sirius had a long time in Azkaban to >work out how to do it. Bart: I think it's even simpler than that. I'm not sure we have canon saying that a wand is necessary to activate animagus abilities. We DO have canon showing that Tonks can change her appearance without a wand, and Harry doesn't need a wand to speak parseltongue. In other words, if a wizard has an innate ability, s/he does not need a wand to activate it. Now, consider: Moodycrouch turned Draco into a ferret, without much apparent difficulty. And the fact that he was able to do so was not considered to be any great feat. So, turning a wizard into an animal and back is not a great piece of magic, nor does it have to be registered. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that when a wizard becomes an animagus, it is not so much the ability to turn into an animal but to turn BACK into a wizard without aid (as very few animals can handle wands properly). And, given the fact that animagi have to be registered, it is also a quite reasonable conclusion that the animagus spell gives the wizard the INNATE ABILITY to change to and from animal form. Bart From smmiraq at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 17:07:29 2007 From: smmiraq at yahoo.com (sarah mohi) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:07:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <711615.88450.qm@web37512.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177131 Eggplant107 wrote: My biggest failed prediction is that Harry didn't die. My second biggest failed prediction is that Percy turned out to be yet another (yawn) good Weasley. I still think JKR dropped the ball on this sub thread. Sarah: I agree, it would've been more interesting and I wish she had killed Harry, however ,I'm not so sure about Percy. I mean it is very likely that that is why she invented the character but I always got the impression that he was good,too ambitious yes but bound to turn around eventually, had he done that it would've been impossible for him to redeem himself, and lets not forget that he is a Weasley. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 17 18:31:35 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 14:31:35 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) Message-ID: <933968.1190053896488.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177132 SSSusan: >Oh, I'll play! My biggest failed prediction was that we would >discover what happened in the missing 24 hours, and that it >definitely involved Snape doing something additional to protect Harry >before his deposit at the Dursleys. I was convinced he had used his >expertise to offer up an additional protection and that this was one >reason DD was so sure he could trust Snape. Sigh.... Bart: My biggest failed prediction (other than the ones I specifically labeled as "longshots" was that I simply did not believe that Harry was a horcrux. However, I was gratified that JKR saw the difficulties I saw, and found a way around them. I felt that a horcrux spell would just be too complex to cast accidentally. JKR's answer was that Morty's soul was so unstable by the time of the murder of the Potters that it just kind of split on its own, and its joining with Harry was somewhat imperfect, as well. On the other hand, not a single one of my longshot predictions came out correctly. The best prediction I made was when I stated that the ring should have killed Dumbledore, and the only thing that was keeping him alive at all was Snape's magic, and that it was going to wear out very soon no matter what, and that DD chose the time of Snape killing him to ensure that his death did the most good possible. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 18:57:59 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:57:59 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: <19344944.1190048646214.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177133 Sharon wrote: Also in PS, McGonagal transfigures into a cat and back again without a wand. It is conceivable that very powerful wizards may perform magic without wands. There's nothing in the books that I recall that says it's impossible. Sirius had a long time in Azkaban to work out how to do it. > Bart replied: > I think it's even simpler than that. I'm not sure we have canon saying that a wand is necessary to activate animagus abilities. We DO have canon showing that Tonks can change her appearance without a wand, and Harry doesn't need a wand to speak parseltongue. In other words, if a wizard has an innate ability, s/he does not need a wand to activate it. > > Therefore, it is not unreasonable to conclude that when a wizard becomes an animagus, it is not so much the ability to turn into an animal but to turn BACK into a wizard without aid (as very few animals can handle wands properly). And, given the fact that animagi have to be registered, it is also a quite reasonable conclusion that the animagus spell gives the wizard the INNATE ABILITY to change to and from animal form. Carol responds: A spell can't give a person an *innate* ability, which is by definition inborn, but it might enable the wizard to develop innate *potential*. Tonks and her son Teddy are born metamorphmagi (an innate ability); James, Sirius, Peter, and presumably McGonagall and Rita Skeeter have to *learn* to become Animagi (an acquired skill that may or may not involve a degree of inborn potential or talent, rather like becoming a musician in the RL). Harry's ability to speak Parseltongue is also not innate; it's acquired through the soul bit. Tom Riddle and the Gaunts, however, did have that innate ability, which, as you say, does not involve a wand but doesn't seem closely analogous to becoming an Animagus (more like being born a Metamorphmagus). As an aside, Tom Riddle could perform telekinesis and something resembling a wandless Imperio and Crucio before he was eleven, so there's some validity to the theory that a really powerful wizard doesn't need a wand. (See the boy Riddle's response when DD asks him what he can do in HBP.) Becoming an Animagus, however, does not seems to be an innate ability, considering that it took WPP three years to learn (and, if Lupin is reliable here, it took a lot of help from James for Peter to master the skill; as an aside, I think Peter's talents are consistently underestimated, in part because he wants them to be). I agree, however, that the tricky part of becoming an Animagus is learning how to change back into human form without a wand, not only because a dog or a beetle would be unable to manipulate a wand, even if they kept their full human intelligence, but also because there's no wand on the animal's body (no pocket concealed by the fur, if the animal even has fur, as a beetle doesn't). The wand would also be considerably bigger than Beetle!Rita and about the same length or longer than Scabbers, minus his tail. If a wand were tucked in an inside pocket, it would presumably transform along with the robes, just as Rita's glasses transform into markings around her beetle face, but a wand held in the hand would have to be dropped since most animals other than primates can't hold one (that includes dogs, stags, rats, cats, and beetles) unless an object that the Animagus is holding, like whatever he or she is wearing, becomes part of the animal. I tend to think it doesn't. In any case, a wand is not required for an Animagus to transform. We have canon that Peter Pettigrew did *not* have a wand when he changed into a rat in PoA. When he is forced to transform (PoA Am. ed. 366), he's wandless and at the mercy of Lupin, who is using his own wand, and Black, who is using the unconscious Snape's wand (366-380). When Lupin transforms into a werewolf (381), dropping his own wand, Wormtail seizes it (which he would not have had to do if he had his own wand or Voldemort's with him) and knocks out both Ron and Crookshanks before Harry disarms him. Then the wandless Wormtail transforms and runs off to find Voldemort (381). Black transforms into a dog (381) but does not use Snape's wand to do it; he is consequently helpless against the Dementors because he can't cast a Patronus without a wand (382). (Snape finds his wand outside the shrieking Shack after he regains consciousness and uses it to conjure stretchers.) To return to Wormtail, when we next see him in GoF, he seems to be wandless unless he's using Voldemort's wand, which he uses to kill Cedric Diggory and to obtain the bone for the restorative potion. Apparently, he doesn't have his own wand until the kidnapped Ollivander is forced to make him a new one, as we learn in "The Wandmaker" in DH. What happened to his old one, the one he used to blow up the street and frame his friend Sirius Black for murder? I've always believed that he left it, along with a finger and a bloody cloak, as "proof" that he'd been "murdered." It would have been suspicious if his wand had disappeared with him, and had it done so, Black, instead of laughing hysterically, could have yelled, "He's an Animagus! Look! His wand is missing!" Or maybe he dropped it because it wouldn't transform with him and his little rat hand couldn't hold it. Apparently, he didn't have time to stuff it into an inside pocket. I realize that so-called wandless magic, for example, Apparition (per DH) is usually performed by a wizard who is carrying a wand and seems to require one, but apparently self-transformation, whether innate or learned, is an exception (as are accidental magic performed by children and flying, with or without a broom--Voldie stays airborne after Lucius Malfoy's wand blows up in his hand. I won't get into the question of Snape's bat transformation in DH, but McGonagall is no Snape expert and could be wrong that he needed a wand to do whatever he did). I forgot to mention that Sirius Black doesn't have a wand in Azkaban but regularly transforms into a dog while he's there to protect himself from the Dementors, nor does he have a wand when he's in hiding in GoF. I suppose that in OoP, he's using his mother's or father's old wand, or maybe one he owned as a child and left behind at 12 GP. I don't know how the escaped DEs acquired the wands they used in OoP and DH, either, since theirs were presumably confiscated by Aurors when they were arrested. (Travers does tell Bellatrix!Hermione that new wands require breaking in, but Ollivander hadn't been captured yet when the DEs tried to steal the Prophecy Orb in OoP. Best not to ask where all those wands came from, but I'm getting OT again.) Carol, who thinks that the Shrieking Shack chapters of PoA provide all the evidence we need that no wand is required for an Animagus to transform into an animal and back again From c_and_s_live at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 18:39:10 2007 From: c_and_s_live at yahoo.com (James Casey) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:39:10 -0000 Subject: Where does the wand go? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177134 Given that some wizards do use their wands to "turn" where does the wand go when they do transform? Just something I find humorous. But my real question when asking if Black needed a wand to transform is really a question of how much majic can be performed in Azkaban? To delve more into this how do the witches and wizards who do escape get their wands back? We know that some do emerge having escaped Azkaban with their own wands. James Casey From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 19:23:32 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:23:32 -0000 Subject: Requirement for wands Was Re: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: <001901c7f922$4ecc61d0$95c2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177135 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > I have no doubt whatsoever, that McGonagall has her wand in the > pocket of her robes when she transforms in PS. She would be a > foolish witch to travel without it. I agree with you that McGonagall had her wand in PS, but to me it doesn't mean that she *needed* it for her transformation. There is nothing in the books to indicate that a wand is required to transform. On the contrary, Sirius transforms without a wand, and so does Wormtail. I know someone upthread wrote that Wormtail needed his wand to transform, and even that he had it on him in the Shrieking Shack, but I really can't see any evidence of that, however I try :-). If he had his wand, why would he need to take Lupin's? And he used Lupin's wand to curse Ron and Crookshanks, not to transform. He transformed *after* Harry disarmed him. We were told in DH that a wand is required to Apparate, but why should it mean that it is also required for Animagus transformation? For me, one not necessarily leads to another :-). zanooda From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 19:46:15 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:46:15 -0000 Subject: Snape again WAS: Re: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177136 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > Potioncat here: Missing moments are so much fun. I've read over these > two posts below and given them some thought. Alla, I must have missed > any post that ever mentioned your liking for Snape. One can imagine > that your vehement opposition to him now is a result of having so > esteemed him before. (Sorry, I've been reading Austin again.) > Alla: You. Are. Hilarious. You know that? I am sure you do. God knows I have told you this enough over the years :) I am putting this missing scene of my favorite SHIP in my collection of my all time favorite posts ever. But funnily there is some truth in what you and Austin said ;). Let me explain and I am glad it would not sound too parrot like for you. Some time ago I had a very interesting conversation with the list member offlist about why would one would want to keep talking about topic or book which one did not like and I actually could relate to the part of it. The failed expectations may indeed force one to talk about something you do not like over and over. Snape indeed was my favorite character after book 1. Even Harry came in second ;) But he was not my favorite character in a sense that I just loved everything the character did, oh no. I mean, I loved how he was written, but what I loved the most was the potential for change. Here I thought the man who mistreats eleven year old in such disgusting way, but he still saves him. He must have been an honorable man, and he just may learn what a great kid Harry is and come to respect him and help him. At the end, as far as I am concerned, not much changed, Snape died hating Harry, while not wanting him dead. This point is I am absolutely set on, I am convinced that Snape died hating Harry. So, what I am trying to say is that somehow during the series after GoF specifically I was dissapointed that Snape did not change his attitudes towards Harry not even after Graveyeard. Not the glimpse of sympathy for the burden Harry was carrying on his shoulders. Nothing, nada, zilch. My love/hate turned out to hate at the end of OOP, I think. So, yeah to make a long story short, at some point in time, I saw in Snape an honorable man in his own right, who was struggling for redemption and who just may figure out how amasingly wrong he is in his assesment of Harry. See, I never ever thought that eleven year old should have a burden of making good relationship with his teacher, if his teacher was so amasingly unfair to him on the first lesson. I thought it should be all up to Snape, absolutely. I do not **blame** JKR for her doing the character the way she imagined, not me, LOL. I am happy with the story she told, BUT I did have to make a reassesment of Snape's character in my mind and boy was it not flattering at all. But I still think she did a phenomenal job with him. JMO, Alla From 12newmoons at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 22:22:30 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:22:30 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177137 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 3, The Dursleys Departing This chapter serves several purposes, as is common to early chapters of HP canon. Jo is filling in information and moving the plot along at the same time. The chapter begins with Vernon interrupting Harry's packing in his usual rude manner. Vernon is wavering in his decision to pack up Petunia and Dudley and leave the house. Although he has been told that he and his family are in danger, Vernon suspects Harry of plotting with "his lot" to get the house on Privet Drive away from the Dursleys, a theory that Harry shoots down in short order. Harry reminds Vernon that Harry himself isn't the source of this information. Kingsley Shacklebolt and Arthur Weasley have recently paid a visit to Privet Drive, we learn, to explain to the Dursleys that the protective spells around Harry will end the moment he turns 17, thus putting both him and them in mortal danger from Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The Order of the Phoenix has offered to protect the Dursleys, but that means that all three of them will have to go into hiding. Vernon wants to know why the Ministry of Magic isn't offering protection, and Harry explains again that the Order believes that the Ministry has been infiltrated by DEs. Vernon then expresses his dissatisfaction that Kingsley himself isn't going to come and take the Dursleys. Instead, the job has been given to Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones, as Kingsley is guarding the Prime Minister. Vernon expresses his dissatisfaction with the qualifications of Dedalus and Hestia, and Harry reminds him with some impatience that disasters and general malaise continue to attack Britain, and that this is due to DE activity and the increasing presence of dementors. At this point, Dudley enters the conversation. He clearly remembers his encounter with the dementors and isn't eager to repeat the experience. While Vernon continues to bluster his objections to the plan, Dudley announces that he will go with the Order members. That decides his parents, and Vernon ceases his complaints immediately. Harry goes to his room to finish packing and tries to mollify Hedwig, who is none too pleased with her recent confinement to her cage. When he hears Dedalus and Hestia arrive, he goes downstairs to help them deal with his relatives. Dedalus explains (in his usual ebullient manner) that the 3 Dursleys and the 2 Order members will drive together about 10 miles away from Privet Drive before Disapparating to their safe location. This precaution is necessary because the Ministry is looking for reasons to arrest Harry, and any suspicion that he has performed underage magic could give them an excuse to do so. Harry is to wait at the house for his escort, who, it appears, will not be just Mad-Eye as he had expected. Hestia tells Harry that Mad-Eye will give him the details, but that the Dursleys must leave so that they will be far enough away to Disapparate at the same moment that Harry leaves Privet Drive for good, thus breaking the protective enchantment that Lily gave him. Hestia and Dedalus prepare to leave the room so that the Dursleys and Harry can say their goodbyes, but Vernon says an abrupt goodbye, stopping himself before he can shake Harry's hand. Petunia avoids looking at Harry altogether. But then comes an unexpected objection- Dudley asks why Harry isn't coming with them. His parents are completely flummoxed by this question. Once Vernon realizes that Dudley is serious, he tells Dudley that Harry doesn't want to come along, adding, with a glare at Harry, "do you?" But Dudley isn't satisfied with this answer and asks, "But where's he going to go?" By now, Vernon and Petunia are getting worried about Dudley. Vernon gives his usual perfunctory answer, referring once again to Harry's lot. Hestia finds this insulting to Harry and protests to Vernon, but Vernon is indifferent to her protests and leaves the room. Harry answers for him that the Dursleys aren't concerned about his whereabouts and consider him "a waste of space". And Dudley responds, "I don't think you're a waste of space." Harry is utterly unprepared to hear Dudley express this sentiment. He thinks about the little contact he's had with Dudley this summer and the previous one, and realizes that things have changed, although he has been too preoccupied to pay attention. He finds himself "rather touched" but still wants the moment to end, as it is obviously difficult for Dudley to express himself and awkward for Harry to hear his open expression of concern. Petunia, however, is moved to tears by Dudley's sudden show of humanitarianism. Hestia and Dedalus watch this scene in bemusement, and Vernon stomps back in to hurry everyone along. Hestia and Dedalus bid Harry goodbye and good luck. Then Dudley approaches Harry (somewhat to Harry's alarm) and offers his hand. The two of them shake, and say goodbye with mutual respect (calling it affection would be a great overstatement). Finally, Petunia prepares to leave the room. She says goodbye, turns to walk out, then stops and looks back at Harry. She appears to be on the verge of speaking then turns away once more and walks out of the room. QUESTIONS Oh, the Dursleys *shakes head* 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other books? 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? 3. Many of us expected a confrontation between Harry and Petunia in DH, but instead, Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us Petunia's back story in another context. 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is there unfinished business between them? 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship with his (Dudley's) parents? 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral awareness of these characters by their reactions to encounters with dementors? Other characters have different kinds of reactions-think of Hagrid, for instance. How would someone like Mundungus Fletcher react to them? 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from this? 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would decisions be made without him? 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? Laura ------------------------------------- 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 4, The Seven Potters: Oct. 1 From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 23:01:32 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:01:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Not kill Potter? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709171601k7c94788cm30d3e6fe82a191e1@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177138 James Casey: I believe the only reason not to kill Potter is to bring him back. Lynda: Nice thought, but I'm not waiting with baited breath here. My reason? There have been a lot of fictional serialized heroes whose authors simply stopped writing the series without killing off the character. Something about it making that good truly did win over evil to leave the hero alive and still fighting although he is no longer written about. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 23:06:49 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:06:49 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709171606o76909eer572f63344660304d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177139 Lynda: The thing is, I wasn't upset with the ending I got! Yeah, it was nice to learn later on what the kids grew up to do, etc., but the whole married to their childhood sweethearts with kids thing really didn't bother me. They survived, completed their educations, got jobs, got married (if they wanted to) and went on with their lives. We can garner that from the epilogue at least and that's a closer that allows me enough imaginary plotlines to run with in my times of relaxation... Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 23:07:08 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:07:08 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177140 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > To return to Wormtail, when we next see him in GoF, he seems to be > wandless unless he's using Voldemort's wand, which he uses to kill > Cedric Diggory and to obtain the bone for the restorative potion. > Apparently, he doesn't have his own wand until the kidnapped > Ollivander is forced to make him a new one, as we learn in "The > Wandmaker" in DH. Or Wormtail could use Bertha Jorkins' wand (until Ollivander made him a new one). I suppose he took it when he overpowered her in Albania. Maybe Wormtail only used LV's wand in the graveyard because LV wanted his own wand to take part in the regeneration process - he used to like symbolics :-). > Apparently self-transformation, whether innate or > learned, is an exception (as are accidental magic performed by > children and flying, with or without a broom--Voldie stays airborne > after Lucius Malfoy's wand blows up in his hand. I agree, except for the broomless flying. We can't really know, because in "Seven Potters" Voldie probably had his own wand with him as well, he just didn't want to use it against Harry (that's why he asked for Selwyn's wand after Lucius's was broken). > I won't get into the question of Snape's bat transformation in DH, > but McGonagall is no Snape expert and could be wrong that he needed > a wand to do whatever he did). I know most people believe that Snape transformed into a bat, but I'm still convinced that he just learned how to fly, maybe, as McGonagall suggested, from LV. If he just turned into an animal, I don't see any reason for McGonagall to say that he "learned a few tricks from his master". You don't need LV to learn how to transform yourself into an animal - Viktor Krum knew how to do it in GoF, and there is nothing dark about it. Flying is another matter - no one except LV (and Snape :-) can do it. Besides, bats are small animals, and Harry sees "a huge bat-like shape". OK, maybe Snape turned into a gigantic magical bat, but still, flying seems more logical to me. > Carol, who thinks that the Shrieking Shack chapters of PoA provide > all the evidence we need that no wand is required for an Animagus to > transform into an animal and back again Hear, hear :-) zanooda From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 17 23:10:24 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:10:24 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177141 Carol: > I won't get into the question of Snape's > bat transformation in DH houyhnhnm: I'm not sure that Snape transformed into a bat in DH. I think he was just flying without a broom. McGonagall said "he seems to have learned a few tricks from his master." Such as flying unaided. If he had transformed into a bat I think she would have simply said something like "apparently he was an unregistered animagus", a magical skill she's very familiar with. >>Harry saw in the distance a huge batlike shape flying through the darkness toward the perimeter wall.<< If he had transformed into a bat, why would he be huge, or for that matter, described as *batlike* rather than simply as a bat? Snape has frequently been described as batlike. I think it was just Snape in his own form, flying without the aid of a broom, looking like an overgrown bat because Snape looks like an overgrown bat (Well, I don't think he does, but he is frequently described that way). From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 23:29:28 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:29:28 -0000 Subject: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: <23429133.1190044135591.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177142 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > From: rtbthw_mom > my 10-year-old daughter tonight had an interesting observation: > her comment was that thinking about Hagrid's father marrying a > giantess was "really gross!" > > Bart: > > I kind of wondered about the, well, physical problems involved. > > I guess JKR is a Freudian. Perhaps some sort of transfiguration > > spell? No, no, Bart, why would Hagrid's dad want to transform Hagrid's mom? Men sometimes have strange tastes in women. Hagrid's dad was obviously attracted to big and violent ones, so why would he want to turn Hagrid's mom into a Veela? He liked her the way she was, LOL! The only obstacle here is the difference in size, so I think Engorgement Charm could work just fine. Or he could make her smaller, but Hagrid said giants didn't like magic used on them, so maybe Hagrid's dad didn't dare try that on her. zanooda, still laughing at Bart's post From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 23:40:27 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:40:27 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177143 > > Lizzyben: > > > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it. > > > > Carol: > > We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the > > Gryffindor bullies. ...indeed arrogant, bullying > > "toerags." And I think we're supposed to see that > > the Gryffindors' treatment of Slytherins (and the > > Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than Draco's > > treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at > > the QWC. > > bboyminn: > > While I'm with you in general Carol, I'm not sure I can > agree with the examples you gave. There is a huge > difference between Harry and Draco as representatives > of their Houses. Draco, as I have said, is an instigator; > he is going to consciously and willfully cause trouble > for others. Harry, on the other hand, if not provoked, > is not going to cause or seek out trouble. He like a > quiet life. That makes them very very different. lizzyben: Draco provokes w/verbal words, Harry retaliates w/physical violence. Does Draco deserve to be beat up because of the verbal things he says? (excluding the duels here). Steve: > In psychological terms, perhaps it is the difference > between Active Agressive and Passive Agressive. Draco > is Active, he is willfully causing trouble. In the > Dudley/Toffee incident, the twins are passive. Fred > simply drops a candy. If Dudley had any self-restraint, > or common sense, he would have never ate it. True we > know that Fred planned it that way. But still Dudley > has to accept a substantial portion of the blame, > because, the terrible frightening result was caused > by his own action. lizzyben: *boggles* Well, by the same token, Draco's poisoning of the mead was "passive" aggression, and Ron has to accept a substantial portion of the blame, because his poisoning was caused by his own action in drinking the mead. It's his own fault, really. Katie Bell would never had been cursed if she hadn't taken the necklace - true, we know Draco planned it that way, but she's still got to take responsibility. What's the difference between your argument & using the same argument to defend murder attempts? Is it based on whether we think that person deserved it? Steve: > Let's remember that these Toffees were trick sweets, > the Twins intended to sell them to their friends. lizzyben: They hadn't given it to anyone yet, because they were still "testing" their invention to see how it worked (or possibly killed). Dudley was their guinea pig. "Ton-Tongue Toffee," said Fred brightly. "George and I invented them, we've been looking for someone to test them on all summer..." (GOF, C.5) Steve: > I simply can't put a joke into the same category as > the DE action at the World Cup which I will address > next. Though, I will admit that what passes for a > joke in the wizard world is much more extreme when > it presents itself in the muggle world. lizzyben: And the Twins humiliating a Muggle child is different from the DE humiliating a Muggle family because... it's a joke. Just a joke. Except their father, Arthur Weasley, doesn't believe that. He sees Muggle-baiting as a symptom of something much crueler. "Oh, its a simple enough anti-jinx,' said Mr Weasley as they mounted the stairs, 'but it's not so much having to repair the damage, it's more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-baiting might strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much deeper and nastier..." (OOTP, C. 9) By using magic against a defenseless Muggle child, the Twins are displaying a similar mindset to the DE that used magic against a defenseless Muggle family - abuse of power, the strong tormenting the weak, magic makes might. Steve: > And there was a subversive element of vicousness to > the joke. What if Dudley has stashed the candy and > hadn't eaten it until he went to bed? That could have > been disastrous. Dudley was lucky that Mr. Weasley > was there to help him. But if no wizard had been > around, what would Dudley have done? Though I do > think the Ton-Tongue spell was likely self-limiting, > just as the Canary Cream was; in time, the ton tongue > would have just gone away on its own. I simply can't > see the Twins creating murderous jokes. lizzyben: Like, say, stuffing Montague into a Cabinet to die? HP Lexicon: "Ton-Tongue Toffee: Imbued with an Engorgement Charm, these sweets make a person's tongue swell up to ten times its normal size." Imagine your tongue swelling up to ten times its normal size. Now imagine trying to eat, drink, breathe. There's no indication that the charm expires naturally - the Engorgio charm is also used on spiders, pumpkins, etc. and those items remain enlarged. The wizard needs to cast a "Reducio" charm to put the item back to its normal size. And since the twins were planning to drop the charmed candy & run, it doesn't seem like they were planning on reversing the charm at all. Steve: > As to the DE at the World Cup, that is a separate and > incomparable action. Completely out of the league of > the Twins 'joke'. The DE's action were wholly cruel, > spiteful, vindictive, and physically dangerous; they > were just plain MEAN. No one could possibly put Ton- > Tongue Toffee in the same league as the DE's actions > at the World Cup. lizzyben: Oh, I could. Aren't you contradicting your own argument? You say that the DE's were "mean", different from the Twins, yet also say that the Twins' actions were "vicious". The DE's muggle-baiting was physically dangerous (although actually the family was not harmed, just humiliated). Yet the Twins' joke wasn't physically dangerous, though you say it would have been "disastrous" if a wizard wasn't around to reverse the charm, & Dudley was lucky Mr. Weasley was still there when Dudley ate it. Because if he'd eaten it at night, what would Dudley have done? Suffocated? So yeah, I do think the Twins' actions were spiteful, vindictive & physically dangerous - mean, too. And don't forget the reason why the Twins gave Dudley that Ton-Tongue Toffee - because he's a bully. Oh, the irony! The apparently totally unintentional irony! :) From ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 23:40:14 2007 From: ms_petra_pan at yahoo.com (Petra Pan) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:40:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177144 Laura wrote, in parts: > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 3, The Dursleys Departing > Vernon is wavering in his decision to pack up Petunia and > Dudley and leave the house. Petra, with a grin: I had the urge to hand over maple syrup to the waffling muggle! Laura: > Kingsley Shacklebolt and Arthur Weasley have recently > paid a visit to Privet Drive, we learn, to explain to the Dursleys > that the protective spells around Harry will end the moment he turns > 17, thus putting both him and them in mortal danger from Voldemort > and the Death Eaters. Petra: Just wanted to add from canon (DH, US HB, pg. 33) >> [Harry said,] "The Order is sure Voldemort will target you, >> whether to torture you to try and find out where I am, or >> because he thinks by holding you hostage I'd come and try >> to rescue you." >> >> Uncle Vernon's and Harry's eyes met. Harry was sure that >> in that instant they were both wondering the same thing. Petra: I'm wondering what y'all thought of that "same thing" both Vernon and Harry were wondering about. A likely candidate for that "same thing" is whether Harry would indeed try and rescue the Dursleys if they were being held hostage by Voldemort. You and I know Harry rather better than Vernon does and I suspect that Harry would indeed try to rescue the hostages. But does Vernon believe that Harry would come to Vernon's loved ones' rescue...does Petunia? Does Dudley? It seems to me that Dudley and his parents have had a bit of a parting of the ways in how they perceive Harry. Petra a n :) From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Mon Sep 17 23:48:15 2007 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 23:48:15 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177145 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > Flying is another matter - no one except LV (and Snape :-) can do it. > Besides, bats are small animals, and Harry sees "a huge bat-like > shape". OK, maybe Snape turned into a gigantic magical bat, but > still, flying seems more logical to me. Bev: Lily possibly could have done it, couldn't she? She was scaring Petunia by swinging as high as she could go and then lightly floating to the ground after being tossed high into the air by momentum. The fact that doing this also frightened her mother might be a reason she never perfected the ability? Or you have to born with the ability but it's very difficult to master? Or it's just another JKR endowed ability Snape had in common with her that drew him to her? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Mon Sep 17 23:54:11 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:54:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: <933968.1190053896488.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <933968.1190053896488.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <2795713f0709171654o78d3c63s4f100aa4eee51355@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177146 Lynda: My predictions came pretty close, really. The one that was the furthest off was that I did not see Harry as a horcrux. I'm glad JKR worked the difficulties out as she did, though and made it believable. As for my closest predictions? Snape was working for Dumbledore, but was still, in many ways, not a warm and fuzzy person. Oh and there was that whole Ron and Hermione and Harry and Ginny getting married in the future thing, I had. That turned out to be right. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 00:00:54 2007 From: gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com (gypsy.swpa) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:00:54 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177147 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" wrote: > > Have any of you read the first ending that JK said was not fitting > together? In this one she lets us know what has become of our > characters such as thier jobs in latter life? I heard her say that she is actually saving it all for another book. What she called her encyclopedia. She said that she will let everyone know the future of the characters and even more backstories. She said that Dean Thomas has an interesting story. gypsy.swpa From gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 00:16:32 2007 From: gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com (gypsy.swpa) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:16:32 -0000 Subject: Not kill Potter? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177148 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" wrote: > > I believe the only reason not to kill Potter is to bring him back. I loved the chapter where Harry was facing death in Book 7. I would have never wanted him to die until I read that chapter and realized how it all fit together. I wish J.K. would have killed him off. After reading Book 7 I think that it would have been a perfect ending to Harry. Before reading the book I had always thought that Ginny would die and Harry would end up as the Defense against the Dark Arts teacher. Ginny is just a worthless character and I enjoyed reading about Harry's moments with Cho much more. gypsy.swpa From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 18 00:21:12 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:21:12 EDT Subject: Hermione's saving grace (was Re: Defending Ron) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177149 Jen, who thinks Hermione makes a good character but might be pretty scary as a person. ;) Julie: I agree. I'm not sure I'd want to be friends with her at all. Yet both Ron and Harry do, no matter how much she sometimes annoys them (and vice versa). And it certainly paid off for them, especially for Harry. If it wasn't for the one saving grace of Hermione's, I think I'd quite dislike her. That saving grace is her incredible loyalty to Harry. Sure, they argue at times, and one or the other has huffed off and ignored the other for days after one of their arguments. But every single instance Harry has been in trouble, in need, or in serious danger, Hermione has been there (or tried to be there) for him. That isn't really true for anyone else in Harry's life, kid or adult (except perhaps Sirius, though he was sometimes as likely to put Harry in harm's way as to help him). And it especially isn't true for Harry's nominal best friend, Ron, who abandoned Harry twice at critical times, once during the first Triwizard task, and again during the hiding in the forest in DH. I don't dislike Ron for that, as friends do "break up" sometimes (as Harry and Ron did temporarily in PoA), and as Ron was affected by the locket Horcrux in DH. Still, I can't help comparing him to Hermione and giving her serious bonus points for sticking with Harry despite their occasional spats, and despite the divisive influences of Horcruxes (she wore the locket too). Whatever was going on in her life, or between Harry and her, Hermione always remained Harry's friend during the worst of times, which are the times when friendship truly counts the most. I have to acknowledge that and love her for it. As I'm sure does Harry. Julie ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 00:34:27 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:34:27 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177150 > Jen: I just realized we never heard a peep from Tiger Patronus about > the prediction contest! Oh well, some of the questions didn't even > appear in DH - did we even find out head boy/girl during year 7? No > late-in-life magic either *glares at JKR*..... > > So, here's a chance to impress each other with our awe-inspiring > predictions and mutter and grumble about predictions JKR so *obviously* > would have used if she'd been creative enough to think of them > herself. ;) lizzyben: Well I had hits & misses: - Dumbledore is an evil Puppetmaster who uses & exploits his followers. I'm calling this a hit. :) - Dumbledore leaked the prophecy on purpose. Debatable, but since he knew Snape was a DE in the very next scene... hit. - DD's Plan involves sacrificing Harry's life for the "greater good". Hit. I couldn't believe it when DD actually used that phrase. - DD set up Godric's Hollow to get a Chosen One & defeat LV. Miss, though I still have my paranoid doubts. - Snape is "Lily's Man, through & through" - hit, though I didn't expect it to be as pathetic & cringe-worthy as it was! - Snape will cry. And again, cringe-worthy. - House Unity. MISS. Moving on... Biggest misses: - Harry will drink the Draught of Living Death. Nope, that potion never really played a role in the plot, did it? - The final face-off will take place in Hogwart's Quidditch stadium. Because cover sort of looks like a stadium, & Harry's maybe reaching for a snitch... never mind. - Snape will have a heroic, redemptive death, like Sydney Carton in Tale of Two Cities. *Sigh* If only. Biggest hit: - Harry will successfully use an Unforgivable Curse. Quite a few, actually! lizzyben From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Sep 18 00:49:12 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:49:12 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A252789-1899-4E39-9B86-4D87AF695CCB@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177151 On 2007, Sep 17, , at 14:22, kneazlecat54 wrote: > QUESTIONS > > Oh, the Dursleys?*shakes head* > > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their > relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it > means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other > books? Yes. In the first book, he couldn't make his mind up about how to escape from the letters, driving here and there seemingly randomly. In the face of what he perceives as danger, he can't seem to make his mind up what to do. He has the certainty to act, but can't seem to reason beyond that to decide what would be the BEST kind of action. > 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, > clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship > with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment > towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do > you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make > her feel? Like Snape, when Petunia looks at Harry, she sees Lily's eyes and James' hair and body type. I think this reminds her continually of what magic stole from her - a younger sister who looked up to her and loved her. Magic, Snape, and James stole Lily from her. And, in some ways, they also took her importance to the family away. As a first born, she assumed she had a special place, then along came Lily, who not only had a special talent, it was a talent their parents appreciated. She was permanently deposed. > 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to > speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other > again? Is there unfinished business between them? Perhaps there is some unfinished business between them, but Petunia has long since squandered the opportunities to develop a relationship with Harry. And, like Voldemort, I think she is too full of resentment to go beyond that. And Harry, who doesn't yet understand why she resents him, has given up on her, so he can't reach out either. > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans > wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of > view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his > entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during > that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and > how did it change him? Dudley is a bully. A bully fears losing. I think Dudley's worst memories would have been of a time when he felt lost or incompetent at something. Since Petunia was quite overprotective of him when he was young, I would think some normal encounter with someone who was a bit strange or different would have set off unusually strong fears in him - perhaps that time when he was in a shop and Petunia had to grab his hand and pull him out of the shop. Repeat this scenario often enough and he develops a sense that he is vulnerable, in spite of his size. In fact, his size may be a partial response - if he is big and scary enough, then he won't be vulnerable. > 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of > Harry? My response was just like Harry's. Bemused and slightly unbelieving, but appreciative nonetheless. > 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout > their lives? No. I see them being cordial, but not friends - not going out of the way to see each other, but perhaps exchanging ritual Christmas presents or other such things. [socks, anyone?] > 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship > with his (Dudley's) parents? I think they would try to persuade him that Harry is not worth worrying about. In a way, their doubts help Dudley grow up a bit. He will now be more likely to have a few of his own opinions. > 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or > Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral awareness of > these characters by their reactions to encounters with dementors? > Other characters have different kinds of reactions-think of Hagrid, > for instance. How would someone like Mundungus Fletcher react to > them? Bellatrix - seemingly unaffected; Barty Crouch - terrorized; Dudley - scared out of complacency; Harry - haunted by his parents' deaths; Hagrid - saddened by losses. Mundungus - forced to be accountable and honest - the HORROR! > 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every > year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the > way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in > DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. > What can we learn about Harry from this? I think we learn more about JKR than about Harry. JKR doesn't like too much repetition, so tries to think up something completely different each time. > 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't > seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would > decisions be made without him? It seems to me that Moody has taken over as leader. I think most of the order would defer to him, in a similar manner to how they deferred to Dumbledore - he is experienced and has proven skills. I think that is another reason why his death hit them so hard. They lost Dumbledore, Snape (as far as they know) is a traitor, then Moody gets killed. Slowly their leaders are falling by the wayside. It means that others have to step up to the plate, but it also means a certain loss of direction for a while each time. > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while > they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their > bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* Yes, I did wonder. I don't like the Dursleys and I don't even find them all that interesting, but I do wonder just a bit how they end up - just like I wondered with the first book how they finally got off of the rock where the shack was, without their boat. > 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to > Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to > fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning > to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about > it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next > chapter? Was it meant that way? No, I didn't think of it as foreshadowing, but I guess I should have. Too bad Harry didn't just send her off on a mail run ahead of time. Another Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 18 01:11:11 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:11:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EF25AF.9090404@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177152 Carol wrote: > Becoming an > Animagus, however, does not seems to be an innate ability, considering > that it took WPP three years to learn (and, if Lupin is reliable here, > it took a lot of help from James for Peter to master the skill; as an > aside, I think Peter's talents are consistently underestimated, in > part because he wants them to be). Bart: Innate ability in the sense of the second definition in the American Heritage Dictionary, "Possessed as an essential characteristic; inherent." > I forgot to mention that Sirius Black doesn't have a wand in Azkaban > but regularly transforms into a dog while he's there to protect > himself from the Dementors, nor does he have a wand when he's in > hiding in GoF. Bart: Actually, the question of how Sirius transformed in Azkaban is what started this subthread in the first place. Bart From elfundeb at gmail.com Tue Sep 18 01:22:07 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:22:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Defending Ron (was: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: References: <20070917112222.CUA17413@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709171822i5b5a0560s8f202c9a86800442@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177153 Carol: IMO, Ron grows more clearly and dramatically than any other character in DH, and yet he remains himself from the moment Harry meets him until the epilogue nearly everyone except me seems to hate. Carol, realizing that she hasn't done Ron justice in this post and hoping that others will step up to defend him Debbie: I'm delighted to defend Ron, especially when invited to do so instead of fending off Evil!Ron or Dumb!Ron attackers. Ron has always been one of my favorite characters despite (or perhaps because of) his faults. Take his honesty, for example. He always says what he means; he does not hide his feelings or manipulate people. This sometimes comes across as meanness, as Luna points out, or prejudice (his reaction when he learns Lupin is a werewolf), but though it's a fault, it's also a strength. One of the things that always frustrated me about Ron discussions prior to DH was the repeated assertion that Ron was not in the same league as the rest of the Trio. I thought the evidence was always there that he had talent -- to me that was the narrative purpose behind making him good at chess (too bad there wasn't an inter-house chess rivalry) -- but he chose to deal with the expectations he thinks have been placed on him ("everyone expects me to do as well as the others, but if I do, it's no big deal, because they did it first") by simply not trying. After HBP it seemed that JKR was recycling the "lack of confidence at Quidditch" story angle, but in retrospect it's more realistic that a person does not overcome an abiding lack of confidence with a single solid, even spectacular performance. In DH the focus was more on Hermione's apparent doubts about his abilities, which I thought was appropriate. Carol: In DH, Ron at last has to face his demons--insecurity and the jealousy of Harry that he has tried to suppress all these years. He fears that Hermione must prefer the Chosen One to his more ordinary best friend. Once the combination of frustration with the lack of a plan, fear for his family, jealousy, and the Horcrux drives him to leave Harry and Hermione, he instantly realizes his mistake, but he can't get back to them because of the Snatchers. But Dumbledore, knowing both his weakness and his strength, has provided him with a way back, and Ron proves his "valor, nerve, and chivalry" first by saving Harry from drowning and strangulation by the Horcrux, then symbolically destroys his own fears and insecurities by destroying the mocking figures within the Horcrux and the Horcrux itself. Debbie: Dumbledore's prescience here didn't make much sense to me. Ron is known for his loyalty. Ron's departure is written to put a large part of the blame on the added burden of wearing the locket horcrux. Harry also tells him to leave, twice. Did Dumbledore leap to this conclusion after observing the rift in GoF from a distance? In that instance, Ron honestly believed Harry was hiding something from him. As we know, he leapt to an unwarranted conclusion there, and he showed a lack of faith in his best friend (which is the same thing, with the added impetus of the locket, that causes him to leave in DH), but how would Dumbledore know this? He hardly ever had any contact with Ron. I suppose we could dismiss the exchange as nothing more than Ron still dwelling on his own insecurities and Harry trying to assuage him, but based on the context (Hermione is about to suggest that they visit Xeno Lovegood based on clues in her book) I think we're supposed to accept their conjectures as true. Jen: Loyal to a fault, brave, funny, willing to pitch in whenever he's needed - he has so many good qualities that often get pushed aside as the one nobody notices when Harry is around, or Hermione, or Fred, George....etc. etc. I think of Charlie as the brother most like Ron even though there's not much to go on. He seems like a guy quietly going about his business, maybe more independent than Ron because he's not as much of a follower. Debbie: I know this will seem odd, but I think Ron resembles Percy. They're the most sensitive members of the Weasley family, more affected by teasing than the others appear to be. And that sensitivity can lead to rifts. There are similarities between Ron's running away in DH (as well as the GoF rift with Harry) and Percy's rift with his family in OOP. Both find it harder to return than to walk out (I thought Percy showed signs of wanting to return in HBP) but their loyalty wins out in the end. (I never doubted that Percy would return, except that I thought (and feared) that he would try to redeem himself in some secret, Crouch-like way that would get him killed.) They also both have ambition -- remember Percy reading "Prefects Who Gained Power" in CoS, or what Ron saw in the Mirror of Erised? They just deal with their hopes and fears differently. Percy tries to over-achieve to stand out in the noisy crowd (where the Twins are the natural attention-getters), but in doing so makes himself a natural target of the Twins. Ron, on the other hand, tries to under-achieve and thereby slide under the Twins' radar, possibly because he'd already seen the effect of Percy's tactics. Perhaps the biggest difference between Percy and Ron is birth order. Jen: I really think she was trying to decide if Ron was worthy of a kiss!! That moment when Ron sympathizes with Kreacher makes him finally good enough in her eyes. That's how I read it anyway. That negative part of her characterization is eye-rolling to me yet it fits for someone as smart as she is: being a little too sure of herself, acting superior and arrogant at times - it's a downside to her intelligence. Debbie: It wasn't just Ron's concern for the house elves. She was already gushing about how brilliant an idea Ron had to go to the Chamber of Secrets for the basilisk fangs, and how well he managed to pull off the Parseltongue. All the pieces were coming together in a way that erased whatever final doubts she might have had about Ron's intelligence, resourcefulness and compassion. Debbie who probably hasn't done Ron justice either [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 18 01:30:31 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:30:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What is in the box - Prank and SHIPS ( surprising and otherwise) WAS Surp In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46EF2A37.10807@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177154 zanooda2 wrote: > No, no, Bart, why would Hagrid's dad want to transform Hagrid's mom? > Men sometimes have strange tastes in women. Hagrid's dad was > obviously attracted to big and violent ones, so why would he want to > turn Hagrid's mom into a Veela? He liked her the way she was, LOL! Bart: I was actually thinking of enlarging HIMSELF. Bart From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Sep 18 01:15:18 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:15:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing Message-ID: <20070918111518.CUB42136@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177155 Laura wrote: 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? Sharon: First, thanks for the very interesting questions! To my mind, Petunia was envious of Lily becuase she was a witch and got to go to Hogwarts -- as evidenced by Petunia's letter to Dumbledore asking if she could also attend (in Snape's DH memory). It must have been extremely dissapointing for Petunia to be turned down. However, Petunia is not the kind of person to be outcone by anyone, even her sister. JKR makes it clear that she was always staring out the window watching what the neighbors were doing and that she was highly concerned with what the neighbors and others thought of her and her family. She wanted to be better than everyone in the street. So Petunia would have turned her dissapointment into its opposite, deciding that being a witch was something shameful and disgusting, since she herself could never be one. When Harry shows up on her doorstep, he reminds her once again of all that childhood angst about being a witch, and so Petunia sees Harry as representative of everything she couldn't have and now hates and despises. She treats him so badly because she tells herself he is a freak and doesn't deserve better. But underneath she is just envious. That is why they try to run away so Harry won't go to Hogwarts. Petunia wants none of it, she especially does NOT want Harry to have what Lily had and she never could. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177156 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "kneazlecat54" <12newmoons at ...> wrote: > QUESTIONS > > Oh, the Dursleys *shakes head* > > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their > relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it > means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other > books? Alla: Yeah, I thought he was just as bully as ever but maybe scared bully. > 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, > clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship > with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment > towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do > you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make > her feel? Alla: Do not know, do not care, find her treatment of Harry even more despicable especially in light of her early years revelations. Although I guess the answer is Lily's eyes. Seems like her beef was not even with James, but with Snape, so even the fact that Harry looks like James does not make me feel for her much. > 3. Many of us expected a confrontation between Harry and Petunia in > DH, but instead, Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us > Petunia's back story in another context. Alla: Yes, thought was very very well done and sort of surprising yes. Although even maybe I had tiny bit of sympathy for little Petunia, it still did not make me sympathise much with her grown self. > 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to > speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other > again? Is there unfinished business between them? Alla: Hope not. > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans > wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of > view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his > entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during > that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and > how did it change him? Alla: Didn't JKR mention somewhere that he saw himself as he is in reality, Dudley I mean? Maybe I dreamt it up. > 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of > Harry? Alla: OMG, I **loved** it, I loved it, loved it, loved it. Again, it is not like Dudley expressing that sentiment made me automatically like him, because he started to like Harry. No, of course not. But I found it believable and was again reminded of how quickly and believably to me JKR resolved Molly/ Fleur emnity. While I would never call JKR Tolkien or Shakespeare or Tolstoy or Dostoevsky, I think she is a very **good**, solid writer. Writer who is capable of showing so much with so few words. > 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout > their lives? Alla: I would like Harry having some contact with Dudley. Seems like Dudley is not opposed to it and Harry may want to have a relative in the muggle world. > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while > they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their > bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* Alla: Was happy, yes, but as I said would not mind further contact with Dudley. Thanks for great questions, Laura. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Tue Sep 18 01:57:04 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:57:04 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to. Message-ID: <20070918115704.CUB48714@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177157 My biggest hit was that Harry would have to sacrifice himself for the greater good, but that somehow he would survive anyway. Got that one right at least, although i didn't work out the Hallows thing. I thought it would be just the blood thing, so almost got that right. Boringly, I also predicted Ron/Hermione and Harry/Ginny, but even blind Freddie could see those :-) One of my biggest misses was Snape not being redeemed to everyone. I predicted he would turn out to be on DD's side (well i was half right) and that he would finally reveal himself to all as the brave and loyal (but not dead!) guy he really was. Oh well.... My other big miss was that I was sure Dumbledoew was still alive. I had thought that Snape really didn't kill him on the Astronomy Tower and that what had happened was that while appearing to do the AK, Snape was really performing some other kind of spell in his head, one that just made it look like Dumbledore was dead. The rationale was that Dumbledore needed to hide out for awhile to get himself back to health and get rid of the effects of the dark magic, so he faked his own death to fool the DE's and LV. BIG booboo....I was most dissapointed at being wrong.... Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 02:04:52 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:04:52 -0000 Subject: Dark is Rising and HP Parallel, SPOILERS for Dark is rising Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177158 So all the talk on OTC about Dark is Rising made me want to reread the series again. PLEASE guys. I am writing it here, because I want to make canon comparisons, if anybody wants to talk just about "Dark is rising", please reply on OTC. Anyways, I must say that in some aspects I remembered those books as a bit more forgiving than they seem to me now. Not that I mind, mind you, but I am amused, actually. Magpie, shout out to you especially. Read on and you will understand why. I mean first and foremost because you like Dark and Rising obviously :) For example, does anybody who read the series was reminded of Dumbledore's treatment of Snape in Merriman treatment of Walker. I mean, loose parallel of course, since Walker did not come back and ask Merriman for a favor, but oh boy, looks to me that Merriman made Walker lead rather wretched life indeed for centuries. I think Dumbledore still has a long way to go to be like Merriman. Or maybe he could be a good student. Again, not that I mind. I am more and more of the mind that Light has to be able to fight for what it believes in and Walker is a traitor, but oh boy did I pity him. Much more than a Snape, actually, hehe. "You made me risk my life for a book", indeed. Yes, I know how important that book was, I do. But oh I wanted Merriman to get over himself when he tells Will Anyways, Magpie, my shout out to you is because I know you have a problem with memory charms, obliviations etc in HP. Mmmm, do you have a problem with Drew kids being forced to forget all they had been thhrough at the end? I remembered actually being quite upset over that part, but funnily still liking the ending. I guess the fact that Will did not forget made me feel a bit better, but not much. It is funny, I can totally accept the memory charms in HP just because I buy the rationale of two worlds needed to stay separate. But in Dark is Rising, Drew kids were in the center of all that, they helped so bery much and that is what they get as a thank you? I mean, I still do like the ending, but in a very sad way and think that Drew kids were violated and badly. Magpie, do you think it is any different from wizards deciding to obliviate muggles when necessary? Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 02:20:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 02:20:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177159 Laura (kneazlecat54) wrote: > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 3, The Dursleys Departing > Hestia tells Harry that Mad-Eye will give him the details, but that the Dursleys must leave so that they will be far enough away to Disapparate at the same moment that Harry leaves Privet Drive for good, thus breaking the protective enchantment that Lily gave him. Carol responds: Except for Petra's comments, it looks like I'm the first to respond! I hope you don't mind my pointing out here that the protective enchantment that's ending is Dumbledore's, which was based on Lily's blood protection. IIRC, the blood protection still exists (except that, thanks to the drop of Harry's blood in Voldie's veins, Voldie can touch Harry now). It comes into play again when Harry sacrifices himself later in the book. QUESTIONS > > Oh, the Dursleys *shakes head* Carol: Yup. Those Dursleys. Can't change--or can they? > > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other books? Carol: I don't recall him saying, "Oi, you!" before, but the refusal to use his name is in character, essentially, a refusal to acknowledge Harry's humanity or relationship to the family, IMO. I decided to check SS/PS to see how much if anything had changed in their relationship (other than Vernon's fear of Harry's powers increasing with each year and his ability to bully Harry steadily decreasing) and found that he addresses Harry as "boy" in that book, too, and speaks of him in third person as "the boy." Essentially, Vernon wishes that Harry didn't exist and pretends that he doesn't whenever possible. Beyond that, he attributes to worst possible motives to Harry. (Either Harry will blow up the house (SS/PS), no doubt following his parents' fatal example, or he'll steal the house (DH). Vernon's values are those of a stereotypical middle-class conformist property owner suspicious of the WW. Here, he's torn between what could happen if Harry is telling the truth and suspicion that Harry is lying. The only two people with any influence on him are Dudley and Petunia--exactly the situation in SS/PS and all the other books, especially PoA (the Aunt Marge incident) and OoP (the Dementors). > > 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? Carol: I thinks there's more to it than her rage and resentment toward Lily, not just her jealousy and thwarted desire to go to Hogwarts (it really is a sad situation, unpleasant though Petunia is) but also her knowledge of what will happen if she violates her implied contract with Dumbledore. He must have told her that she and her family would be in grave danger if anything happened to Harry--IOW, I think that the blood protection extended to them while he was in the house or called it home. She has a clearer idea than Vernon does of the power of wizards. As for what she sees when she looks at Harry, I think she sees exactly what most of the other adults do: James with Lily's eyes. James, however, is (to Petunia) only the apparently unemployed wizard who married Lily and died with her, maybe even caused her death by marrying her. Lily is the once-loved sister who was loved more than Petunia and got to go away to Hogwarts. I think that suppressed love of Lily is what caused Petunia to take Harry in. But what she sees is not just the sister she lost, the sister she both loved and hated, but the world that she wasn't allowed to enter and could never be part of. She conceals those feelings under the "furious pretense" that the WW doesn't exist or pretends to share Vernon's view that it's abnormal, but it's really sour grapes, and twice (SS/PS and OoP) she lets her feelings and memories escape her. (Imagine if Harry had told her that Severus Snape, "that awful boy," grew up to "murder" Dumbledore! I think she's feel validated in her judgment of Lily's childhood friend and the world she chose to live in. The threat of the DEs also seems to validate that judgment.) > > 3. Many of us expected a confrontation between Harry and Petunia in DH, but instead, Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us Petunia's back story in another context. Carol: Erm, did you forget to ask a question here? > > 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is there unfinished business between them? Carol: It's just possible that she would have said "I'm sorry," but she can't bring herself to do it after all these years, or maybe even to admit to herself that she's mistreated her sister's son. I wish she could have showed him a photo of herself and Lily or let him read the letter that was tucked into his blankets, but the glimpses provided by Snape's memories are probably the only insight into Petunia's childhood that Harry will ever have. I doubt that they'll see each other again. Maybe they would exchange nods but not words, depending on whether Petunia was with Vernon (who would ignore Harry) or Dudley (who would say hello). If she was alone, she'd probably do exactly as she does in this scene: look at him, hesitate, and turn away. > > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? Carol: But Harry should know that Dudley's life hasn't been all peaches and cream. He'd been both frightened and harmed by wizards twice before he encountered the wizards. So I think he was hearing either Hagrid or the Twins, probably Hagrid, who is not only magical but a "giant" in Dudley's eyes. I don't think what Dudley heard (not saw--aren't Dementor-induced memories only sounds?) changed him. What caused his view of Harry to change was his recognition that Harry had saved his "life" (he never grasped the idea that Harry had saved his soul, maybe because it makes Harry sound like a Fundamentalist preacher) and is therefore not "a waste of space." For the first time ever, Dudley felt gratitude. (He had never felt that sentiment in response to the gifts that his parents showered on him; he probably thought that indulgence was his right as their son.) I don't think he's introspective enough to feel remorse, but I think he vaguely felt that Harry was his cousin and part of the family and maybe they ought to be nicer to him. Poor Dudley: if he only had a brain. He could so easily have become a Muggle Crabbe; he's very fortunate that Harry saved his "life" and altered his perspective to the extent that it was possible to do so. > 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? Carol: Disbelief. In fact, I wondered whether the book might be weaker than its predecessors, filled with moments that required the willing suspension of skepticism (forgive me, Coleridge!). Then I decided to read on, feeling for once almost exactly what Harry was feeling. However, by the time we got to Harry's impulse to threaten him with magic, I thought Harry was a bit dense (which is my usual reaction to Harry, who tends to be a bit slow on the uptake). Once I got used to the new Dudders, I rather liked him (though not enough to want him in the rest of the book). I thought having Harry call him "Big D" was a nice touch. > > 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? Carol: It's possible that Harry might see Dudley in Muggle London, but I doubt that they'll be exchanging Christmas cards, much less inviting each other to tea. It will be like seeing an old acquaintance from your school days--a quick hello and exchange of information (jobs, marriage, kids) and a "See ya around." > > 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship with his (Dudley's) parents? Carol: Do you mean after the Dursleys were taken to safety? I don't think Big D would have any more worries. Dedalus and Hestia would assure him that Harry was safe. He'd be more concerned about having nothing to do--no friends, no computer, no TV. He might even be happy to return to school to make up his missed year when those ten long months were up. I think the relationship is likely to go back to normal, with the adult Dursleys anxious to please their very discontented teenage son. > > 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral awareness of these characters by their reactions to encounters with dementors? Other characters have different kinds of reactions-think of Hagrid, for instance. How would someone like Mundungus Fletcher react to them? Carol: It took me awhile to understand this question. I think that Bellatrix in Azkaban would have had some protection from the Dementors through Occlumency (she knows enough to teach Draco the basics), and I think her certainty that she had acted rightly in searching for Voldemort would have helped her in much the same way that her cousin's clinging to his innocence helped him. Perhaps there was no true happiness for the Dementors to steal from her, and no doubt her mental stability (such as it was) suffered like her looks from those years in Azkaban, but neither she nor her fellow escapees completely lost their minds and gave in to despair. Barty Jr. was younger and less certain of his cause (at least, while he was in Azkaban); he was also more of a coward and had his father not foolishly yielded to his dying wife's wishes, I think he would have died there of despair. But moral awareness has nothing to do with it; Bellatrix is evil, but it's an "evil, be thou my good" sort of philosophy. She believes in Voldemort and that belief helped her to survive. (By the time the Dementor sucks his soul, Barty Jr. is as certain of his rightness and as devoted to Voldemort as Bellatrix, but he's unconscious when the Dementor sucks his soul; moral awareness has nothing to do with it. As for Mundungus, he'd be as fearful as Dudley and probably as helpless; it's hard to imagine him casting an effective Patronus against a Dementor, and yet he must have known how to cast one to communicate with his fellow Order members.) Hagrid, we know, reacts in the same way as Dudley, feeling that he'll never be happy again and remembering the worst moments of his life. Again, moral awareness has nothing to do with it. The only defense, aside from a Patronus, is an ability to close your mind in some way. (Being able to transform into a dog helps, too.) > 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from this? Carol: Oh, my. It would take me a whole post just to list the different ways he leaves and returns, much less to analyze their significance. Obviously, he's placed on the Dursleys' doorstep by Hagrid, who's riding Sirius Black's motorcycle, so that story arc comes full circle as he leaves forever with Hagrid, this time sitting rather comically in the sidecar. I laughed even though I knew he was going into danger. And, of course, this departure is reminiscent of the one in OoP, where Mad-eye says that if anyone is killed, the others should keep flying--a bit of ironic foreshadowing of Mad-eye's own death that probably few of us recognized at the time. Let's see: the Flying Ford Anglia, the Knight Bus, the Weasleys, the Order, Dumbledore, the Order again. If there's a pattern, I don't see it except that Harry is in trouble during the second, third, and fifth books, and is driven to King's Cross by the Dursleys exactly once. The rest of the time he's usually being rescued in one way or another for one reason or another. Not very self-sufficient yet, but then again, he's underage. > > 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would decisions be made without him? Carol: Mad-eye seems to have been in charge until his death. After that, the Order members seem to be operating more or less independently, doing little more than making wireless broadcasts and providing safe houses protected by Fidelius Charms. By March, Mr. Weasley, three of his sons, and even Kingsley have quit their jobs and are in hiding. Snape, of course, still has a job to do, but no one knows he's working for Dumbledore. McGonagall, of course, is also still at Hogwarts doing what she has always done (and undermining what she sees as the Snape regime). Only when the DA summons the Order to Hogwarts, do the Order members come out of hiding and fight, with Kingsley stepping up to take charge. > > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* Carol: I figure that the Dursleys own their house so they won't lose it, but the water and electricity will be turned off. I hope for their sakes that Kingsley informed the Muggle authorities that the Dursleys had left town and weren't dead or kidnapped. Otherwise, their lives will be in an uproar when they get back. I don't see how Vernon could help but lose his job, but a good Confundus Charm from Dedalus when Vernon returns home could "convince" his boss to rehire him. I think that the fate of the Dursleys is a detail that JKR didn't concern herself with. She figures that, like Harry, we'll feel that we're well shot of them. Still, I hope someone removes the rotting meat from the freezer and so forth, or conditions will be pretty unpleasant for the neighbors as well. And Mad-eye just left the door unlocked. Sure, a locked door is no protection against DEs, but what about run-of-the-mill Muggle burglars and vandals? I wouldn't want to be a Dursley returning home from this little vacation. > 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? Carol: I don't see it as foreshadowing. I think it's the last semblance of normalcy. Harry has already (apparently) lost Hogwarts. He's losing the only other home he's ever known and feels odd about leaving. Later, he loses both Hedwig and his Firebolt, the last connection with his childhood, as well as the Order member who seemed least likely to die, having endured so much. Even the Weasley Twins will never be identical again. So, no foreshadowing here, just Hedwig being her usual self, petulant when she's not free. Had he let her fly to the Weasleys, she might have survived. Or maybe not, if the DEs were watching the neighborhood. Her death, like Cedric's, like Sirius Black's, like Harry's parents', is completely unexpected and shocking, like so many deaths in real life. It helps to prepare the reader and Harry for more deaths to come: Mad-eye, Dobby, Fred, even Snape, all of whom die suddenly and unexpectedly. One moment, everything is normal, or seems that way. The next, someone Harry knew and in some cases loved is gone forever. JKR's writing, and this book in particular, may have many flaws, but the depiction of death is not one of them. She is ruthless, without sentimentality. She understands the suddenness of death and the pain of the survivors. And yet, from the whispers behind the Veil in OoP to the words on the tombstones in Godric's Hollow, she offers hope as well, as least for humans, at least for wizards. And Hedwig, as Hagrid says, lived a happy life. I don't think she suffered. That's the only comfort Harry receives. Hedwig is gone, and with her, his childhood. Carol, with apologies for the length of her responses and for jumping ahead to the next chapter From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 04:24:45 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:24:45 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177160 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "e2fanbev" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > Flying is another matter - no one except LV (and Snape :-) can do > > it. > Bev: > Lily possibly could have done it, couldn't she? She was scaring > Petunia by swinging as high as she could go and then lightly > floating to the ground after being tossed high into the air by > momentum. Oh, I don't know, maybe we shouldn't compare uncontrolled children's magic with "real" adult magic. This kind of "flying" happened not only to Lily, but to other kids too. Remember Neville's uncle Algie who hanged the poor boy out of the window by the ankles, and then accidentally let go? Neville didn't hit the ground, he "bounced", in his words - some kind of levitation, maybe? Even Harry once found himself on the roof of the school, when Dudley was chasing him. I don't know if it was levitation or maybe something else, like spontaneous apparition, but anyway ... . I don't think these "childhood accidents" show that a person will be more capable of flying later in life then others. But I could be wrong of course :-). zanooda From alison_martin at mac.com Tue Sep 18 04:23:18 2007 From: alison_martin at mac.com (aiwerks) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:23:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177161 "kneazlecat54"wrote: > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their > relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you > think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with > that in the other books? I did not see much of a difference between how Vernon acts during this departure and how he acted previously. He's really just a cross old fellow who believes that if an idea didn't come from him or an authority figure that he trusts then there must be something wrong with it. I think he has begrudged Harry's intrusion into his household since the day the toddler was dropped on his doorstep. Vernon is all about protecting his own and Harry is not blood-related to him and has the further problem of being unusual. Vernon was never putting on an act, he is who he is. > 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet > Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the > family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that > it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing > out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia > sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? Harry embodies all that went wrong with her precious sister. I believe Petunia loved her sister when they were children, before Lily went away to Hogwarts and life changed. In effect, Lily died to Petunia at the age of 11 and magic is what did it. Harry is an added reminder of what went wrong in Petunia's childhood. > 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen > to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other > again? Is there unfinished business between them? I think her words would have been something simple like "Take care of yourself." She's not the type who is going to break down in tears and give a solliquy. Her words would have been a simple gesture of apology and that's all. I think that after a few years, Harry will feel a pull to visit his blood relations one last time. There is unfinished business between him and the entire family and he would want to make sure that they are okay. He may not make it past the end of the driveway, but he will check in on them. > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans > wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of > view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness > in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to > Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you > think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? As with many bullies, Dudley covers up his fears with anger. He probably saw his friends turning on him, felt the lack of his parents' love, and imagined himself without all the material trappings that make his life so wonderful. Dudley is not an introspective kind of guy and the dementors exposed him to something he had never fathomed before. The experience was probably something that he is still having trouble coming to grips with and it humbles him that it is not something he can attack and conquer. > 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense > of Harry? I was shocked and then my heart warmed. It was beautiful how Dudley had found that ounce of human compassion in himself and was able to humble himself enough to admit that someone had done something to help him. He acts like his parents are his servents, his friends are his disciples, and the world owes him everything but he can see that Harry saved his life and he appreciates it. > 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact > throughout their lives? Probably just a couple of times when Harry checks on the family. I don't think they're going to be penpals or anything but they'll probably exchange a hi or something. > 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship > with his (Dudley's) parents? I'm sure Vernon just pushes Dudley's scene of compassion aside but it did affect Petunia and she may be slightly less acerbic to Harry in the future. Vernon may worry about Dudley being a pansy for a couple of weeks and then will probably forget about it. Petunia thought Dudley's gesture was wonderful but she already thinks Dudley is the greatest person on Earth so there won't be much change there either. > 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix > or Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral > awareness of these characters by their reactions to encounters > with dementors? Other characters have different kinds of > reactions-think of Hagrid, for instance. How would someone > like Mundungus Fletcher react to them? I think when your character is dark, there is only so far down you can go. In the case of DEs, withstanding years of living with dementors is just like years of deep depression. When they escape from the dementors grasp, it is like their depression has been cured and they can go on with life. Their psyche was not altered by the experience because it already exists in a place of darkness. With Mundugus, he is a petty thief, not a DE. He acts without regard to the feelings of others but he still fears capture and can be induced to do the right thing if it's not too much trouble. He's a lot like Dudley in that being faced with dementors may be a life-changing experience for him as he realizes that he has a lot to lose. > 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive > every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? > Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS > and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves > and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from > this? That his life is not mainstream? He doesn't just get to take the taxi to the train station each year and catch the Hogwarts Express. > 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It > didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How > would decisions be made without him? I'm sure they have some sort of group meeting among those order members available where there is a lot of discussion and arguing and they finally reach a conclusion that not everyone is happy with but that everyone can live with. It's all about compromise. > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives > while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How > would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the > back of them? *grin* Honestly, it never occurred to me. I just assumed the Order would take care of them. I'm sure Vernon will lose his job but he's not going to take that lightly and will eventually harrass someone in the order to "use their magic" to get it back for him. He'll make sure all the important issues of his mundane life are taken care of. > 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to > Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is > free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry > and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and > not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her > fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? I think the fact that Harry does not know where he is going to be going directly after Privet Drive leads him to confine Hedwig so that he can be sure she makes the journey with him. He wants everything to be packed and ready to go, including his owl. He probably fears for her life a little as well. I didn't see it as foreshadowing to Hedwigs death, just as Harry finally getting a little more responsible and having everything ready to go. I guess fear of imminent death can help you learn to get your ducks in a row. Ali From salilouisa at googlemail.com Tue Sep 18 08:36:59 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:36:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177162 lizzyben: Draco provokes w/verbal words, Harry retaliates w/physical violence. Does Draco deserve to be beat up because of the verbal things he says? (excluding the duels here). Sali: I'm running with the assumption here that Harry's retaliation can be considered physical bullying. This is not necessarily how I consider his actions in all cases. The question could be, which is worse: verbal bullying or physical bullying? Or who is more to blame, the instigator or the retaliator? Shouldn't Draco bear responsibility for what he says if Harry is expected to take responsibility for his actions? I see his verbal bullying as having two possible aims. One is to pick away at someone's weak spot in such a manner that retaliation would not be feasible as it would get that person into trouble (many people dealing with verbal bullying are afraid that retaliating will get them into trouble and do just suffer in silence, something the bully is counting on). The second is that he is trying to provoke them into retaliating so that they get into trouble (even if he then defends himself, it's usually the one who strikes the first blow who gets into trouble). I personally believe that verbal bullying is nasty and insidious and far harder to combat effectively (by those being bullied and also by teachers) than the physical kind and therefore I consider Draco more to blame both for the type of bullying and for being, for the most part, an instigator. Retaliation may be wrong in many cases but instigation is always wrong in, in my view. Other people may have different views. Sali [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From faithvsion at aol.com Tue Sep 18 13:17:20 2007 From: faithvsion at aol.com (faithvsion at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:17:20 EDT Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177163 QUESTIONS <<1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other books? >> Answer: It shows me that Vernon has not changed or grown as a character at all. His one and only concern remains himself. If anything his treatment of Harry gets worse as the series progresses. he still would prefer that Harry and "his Lot" simply did not exist. <<2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel?>> Answer: Like all that knew Lily she sees her sister's eyes.:-) Harry is a reminder ( especially after he gets HIS Hogwarts letter) of what she missed out on and keeps all those feelings of jealousy and resentment alive in Petunia. <<4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is there unfinished business between them? >> Answer: I think she might have wished him good luck. I doubt she will ever be able to apologize. I think Harry will avoid ever seeing any of the Dursleys again if at all possible ( providing they survived--we aren't told). I do hold a secret desire to have them meet on Platform 9 3/4 with Dudley delivering his child to the Howarts express:-).there is so much unfinished business there one can't begin to summarize it. <<5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? >> answer: I wonder if he relived some of the horrible treatment of Harry at his parents hands. prehaps some of his bullying of his cousin was an attempt to stay on his parents good side and ensure that he remained pampered and spoiled. I do think that he questions whether his parents really love him. Most of the relationship we see between Dudley and his parents involves them buying him off. Maybe deep down Dudley feels as lonely and rejected as Harry, he just expresses it differently <<6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? >> Answer:I think he has grown up some and has started to realize his cousin could in fact die. Upon re-reading the series I also caught a parallel from Book 1 . "I don't want him to come with us" has become "why isnt he coming with us". And prehaps he realizes that his parents need to get a clue:-) <<7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? >> A: Not really, see answer to #4:-) I don't think Harry would ever initiate contact but I can see Dudley maybe in 10 or 12 years trying to get in touch with Harry. <<8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship with his (Dudley's) parents?>> A: They would tell him to be quiet and stop talking nonsense. He would not be able to have that conversation with his parents as a couple. Alone petunia might actually tell Dudley the truth about her sister and how she died. <<10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from this? >> A: Well again there is another parallel between arriving in book1 and leaving in Book 7--in both those instances he travels with hagrid on Sirius' motorcycle. In between he is dumped at the train station ( where he meets the Weasleys), rescued by Ford anglia, runs away, rescued by the Weasleys again, rescued by the Order, and retrieved by Dumbledore himself. He only returns every year because he knows he has to, I think if his mothers protection didn't exist there he would have jsut gone to Ron's house every summer:-)the only years he is actually packed and ready to leave are years 1 and 7, in between he is resigned to the fact that he has to spend time there, is suprised when he is informed he can leave early and packs last minute ( he does get some notice that the Weasleys are coming to get him in book 4) he doesn't quite trust that there is a way out of his horrible existence at Privet drive. <<11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would decisions be made without him?>> A: I think Mad-Eye, Kingsley and Arthur have taken over running the order and it is run as more of a democracy. <<12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin*>> A: I wondered briefly if they survived, but I realized the story is Harry's POV and he probably doesnt really care if they lived. I can picture Hestia and Dedalus magically silencing Vernon out of necessity several times a day:-) <<13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? >> I did wonder briefly why she wasn't sent ahead to the Burrow, then I realized that Harry was probably told by the Order to keep her confined so she wouldn't be followed. It was mentioned that there were probably Death eaters watching the skies in the area and Hedwig is obvious. Her death caught me completely by suprise. Nancy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 16:10:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:10:52 -0000 Subject: Ariana's death Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177164 I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened and Harry doesn't want to know. Obviously, JKR didn't want to tell us, either. She deliberately left it open to speculation. To me, it seems most likely that Grindelwald killed her (probably aiming at Aberforth), but if the spell he cast had been an AK and the brothers knew they hadn't cast one, the identity of the killer would have been obvious, at least to them. Gellert's conduct (fleeing the scene) indicates that he either was guilty, feared he was guilty, or thought that the others would suspect him of being guilty. Anyone care to speculate on what actually happened? Who cast the spell and what was it? If it was Grindelwald, was he trying to kill Aberforth, or did his magic completely escape his control? (Apparently, an AK isn't the only spell that can kill. Ariana managed to kill her mother through accidental magic.) Assuming that Albus didn't actually cast the spell, to what degree is he responsible for his sister's death, in your view? Carol, wondering why there's been so little discussion of DD's youth and a certain merry-faced boy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 16:24:31 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:24:31 -0000 Subject: Ariana's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177165 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. > Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened and Harry doesn't want to > know. Obviously, JKR didn't want to tell us, either. She deliberately > left it open to speculation. To me, it seems most likely that > Grindelwald killed her (probably aiming at Aberforth), but if the > spell he cast had been an AK and the brothers knew they hadn't cast > one, the identity of the killer would have been obvious, at least to > them. Gellert's conduct (fleeing the scene) indicates that he either > was guilty, feared he was guilty, or thought that the others would > suspect him of being guilty. Alla: Oh. For some reason I am pretty sure that it was not Grindelwald. Speculation obviously, just a feeling. Neither do I think it was Albus. I think it was Aberworth. Obviously not intentionally IMO. Aberworth just looks the best out of three by the end of the book, well to me anyways and self righteous, etc. I like him very very much, but it just seems to me the kind of thing JKR would do to the character to smack him down from the pedestal. She did not leave any adult male figures untainted by darkness, no? I think it was Aberworth. As to Grindelwald fleeing, well yeah, I think he fled because he knew he had it in himself to kill, that he **could be** guilty and he knew it, but in my speculative feeling he did not. Neither do I think was Albus guilty of that. But was he responsible? Sure he was in my opinion. He should have shown Grindelwald the door IMO and fast. But since I totally buy him being consumed by the guilt and grief all his life, I think he paid more than enough for that mistake. I still want to cry when I think of cave scene. JMO, Alla, who loved Dumbledore's backstory. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 16:38:15 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 16:38:15 -0000 Subject: Ariana's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177166 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. > Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened and Harry doesn't want to know. Obviously, JKR didn't want to tell us, either. She deliberately left it open to speculation. To me, it seems most likely that Grindelwald killed her (probably aiming at Aberforth), but if the spell he cast had been an AK and the brothers knew they hadn't cast one, the identity of the killer would have been obvious, at least to them. Gellert's conduct (fleeing the scene) indicates that he either was guilty, feared he was guilty, or thought that the others would suspect him of being guilty. > > Anyone care to speculate on what actually happened? Who cast the spell and what was it? ***Katie: I have no idea what the spell could have been. Any number of deadly spells obviously exist, so I assume it could have been plenty. As for who cast it, I definitely feel that it could have been Albus. Since it wasn't an AK, I wonder if the spell (assuming DD did cast it) wouldn't have been as deadly to a wizard with a stronger constitution? Maybe it wouldn't have killed Grindelwald, but Ariana was weaker and so it had more of an effect on her. >Carol:If it was Grindelwald, was he trying to kill > Aberforth, or did his magic completely escape his control? > (Apparently, an AK isn't the only spell that can kill. Ariana managed to kill her mother through accidental magic.) > ***Katie: If it was Grindelwald, then my supposition changes, and I would think that the spell was meant to be deadly. He was obviously a person with little conscious and lots of arrogance, and I'm sure he saw Aberforth as an incredibly unimportant person whose death would mean little. >Carol: Assuming that Albus didn't actually cast the spell, to what >degree is he responsible for his sister's death, in your view? ***Katie: I think there's a very good chance that Albus DID cast the spell, not, of course, meaning to kill his sister. However, assuming that he did NOT...I think he's still very responsible for her death. He brought Grindelwald into the fold, he alienated his brother and ignored his disabled sister, and was generally incredibly negligent of the responsibility left to him. I would say he has most of the responsibility for her death, because the whole situation was caused by his behavior. > Carol, wondering why there's been so little discussion of DD's youth and a certain merry-faced boy ***Katie: I haven't been that interested in grindelwald as a character, because he's someone we have very little real contact with and his story is very disjointed. I don't know that I know enough of him to discuss him intelligently. As for DD's story, I am very interested in how he changed from basically Percy into almost Voldy (in terms of Muggle attitudes) and then into the DD that we know and love, who obviously had a lot more going on than we ever imagined (or at least more than I ever imagined)...I guess I just never found a good way to start a thread. : ) Katie From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Sep 18 17:06:50 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 11:06:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ariana's death References: Message-ID: <007001c7fa16$4e0d2fa0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 177167 From: "Carol" > I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. > Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened and Harry doesn't want to > know. Obviously, JKR didn't want to tell us, either. She deliberately > left it open to speculation. To me, it seems most likely that > Grindelwald killed her (probably aiming at Aberforth), but if the > spell he cast had been an AK and the brothers knew they hadn't cast > one, the identity of the killer would have been obvious, at least to > them. Gellert's conduct (fleeing the scene) indicates that he either > was guilty, feared he was guilty, or thought that the others would > suspect him of being guilty. I wondered too, why each of the brothers wonder why they might have killed Ariana, because they would have known if they had cast a killing spell, but then again, I have to look at Ariana herself for this answer. I wonder if her magic was "off" of sorts- that she could absorb a spell that wasn't meant to kill and it would do something really weird and unexpectedly nasty to her. If the brothers knew this, and thus feared that when they cast a mere "hex" at Grindelwald, if it did indeed hit her and went awry, that they would have been at fault for killing her. Even if Grindelwald had cast a mere hex that hit Ariana, Grindelwald would not have known about this "oddness" of Ariana's, but the brothers would, and thus they would feel bad about it later, knowing that she was more at risk than a normal wizard would have been ordinarily. I think Grindelwald fled at seeing this oddness of the spell going off, for surely he recognized that "this" was not right, and he feared being blamed for it, even if he hadn't sent a killing curse. (I think it was Grindelwald's hex that killed Ariana, but that was never his intent when he sent it, as it wasn't a killing curse.) I think her death was indeed an accident, but the three men involved knew they had been dueling at the time, and thus each felt a measure of personal responsibility. Grindelwald fled because of the unexpected magic he saw from the spell he cast, and he feared being blamed for the murder; Aberforth turned his anger on Albus for not protecting Ariana when she was vulnerable; and Albus blamed himself for allowing Ariana to be harmed at all- thus did not try to defend himself when Aberforth vented on him and broke his nose. There is no getting around that Ariana died as a result of that duel, and even if it was a total accidental death that no one could have predicted, still, you can't undo the guilt that each of them would feel for a lifetime. I consider it to have been an "accidental homicide" that no external punishment was needed, but would be felt internally forever. Shelley From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Tue Sep 18 17:28:02 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:28:02 -0000 Subject: Where does the wand go? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177168 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" wrote: > > My > real question when asking if Black needed a wand to transform is really > a question of how much majic can be performed in Azkaban? How do the witches and wizards who do escape get their wands > back? > > Nimisha: According to me, a witch or a wizard can perform magic anywhere with the help of a wand. But,I also agree that there might have been some charm on Azkaban to prevent anyone from performing magic with a wand since we know that transformation in the other creatures was possible. From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Tue Sep 18 17:07:06 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:07:06 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177169 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" wrote: > > Have any of you read the first ending that JK said was not fitting > together? In this one she lets us know what has become of our > characters such as thier jobs in latter life? Now I will tell you that in this alternate you still do not > get the closer you will seek. The only thing still not mentioned in > the alternate is headmaster at Hogwarts, I still assume it is > McGonagall. I was interested in your views on this. > mention of it yet. > > Nimisha: I think that the new headmaster could also have been Longbottom as he did a lot for the school. JKR has also not mentioned whether Harry became an auror or not. No mention has been made about Ron and Hermione's jobs. I would really like to know whether any of you know anything about this. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 17:49:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 17:49:09 -0000 Subject: Not kill Potter? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177170 --- "James Casey" wrote: > > I believe the only reason not to kill Potter is to > bring him back. ... bboyminn: I think Harry's story has been told. Sure life goes on but the great adventure and triumph over evil in his life has played out. Whatever happens after that is going to be anti-climatic. Since this story has been told in full, JKR is not going to write another Harry story. However, if by change the inspiration occurs for a new Harry or related story, there is nothing to stop her from telling it. But, I think she is moving on. Harry is now a 'been there - done that'. Plus, what is she really going to write about? Sure as an Auror, Harry probably has additional adventures but not on the scale of the original series. At best they would be 'one-off' short term events. So at best she could get a short story out of it. Now, she may indeed publish a short Harry story to raise money for charity, but I think we have seen the last of Harry's epic scale adventures. Further, I don't see anything happening to any of the other characters that is on a grand enough scale to warrant a novel. Perhaps the adventures of Dumbledore, but in fact, Dumbledore spend most of his life as a teacher. So, beyond student mischief, there's nothing really there. In short, I just don't see any new Harry or Harry related novel ever coming out. I'm not saying it's impossible, only that it is very unlikely. Steve/bboyminn From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 18 17:53:04 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:53:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty Message-ID: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177171 lizzyben: >Draco provokes w/verbal words, Harry retaliates w/physical violence. >Does Draco deserve to be beat up because of the verbal things he says? >(excluding the duels here). Sali: > Shouldn't Draco bear responsibility for what he says if Harry is expected >to take responsibility for his actions? I see his verbal bullying as having >two possible aims. One is to pick away at someone's weak spot in such a >manner that retaliation would not be feasible as it would get that person >into trouble (many people dealing with verbal bullying are afraid that >retaliating will get them into trouble and do just suffer in silence, >something the bully is counting on). The second is that he is trying to >provoke them into retaliating so that they get into trouble (even if he then >defends himself, it's usually the one who strikes the first blow who gets >into trouble). Bart: In the United States, there is a concept known as "fighting words". It is recognized that words can be used for the purpose of getting someone violently angry. Legally, if someone uses "fighting words" before a fight, and the target of these words starts the violence, neither has any right to sue the other. An acquaintance of mine was arrested for using fighting words on a police official (he had just literally tricked her into unwittingly committing a crime and she told him what she thought; as it turned out, the incident actually got her some good publicity, as the situation was sufficiently absurd as to make the "strange news" columns nationally). In Canada, the use of "fighting words", even if it does not cause any negative reaction, can get someone put in jail (a few years back, some minor headlines were made when a customer at a restaurant, frustrated at a waiter's inability to speak or understand English, made fun of his accent after he walked away, was arrested, and tossed in jail; I never found out how that ended up). Interestingly enough, professional protesters in the United States are taught techniques on how to anger police officers into using violence without quite stepping over the line of justifying it. One common technique is to put one's face practically against the officer's face and start screaming; it is like having a mosquito in your ear, and not being allowed to swat it. There was a movie, PACIFIC HEIGHTS, which was largely based on this concept; Michael Keaton plays a con artist who, staying just barely within the law, gets people angry enough with him to do physical violence, and then sues the hell out of them. Sometimes, context and tone of voice are key. If you've gained weight, and your clothes are feeling tight, all you need is for some smart alec to say, "I see you've lost some weight, there." But if you repeat it to someone else, it doesn't sound insulting at all. So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions against him. Bart From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue Sep 18 17:59:04 2007 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 10:59:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to. In-Reply-To: <20070918115704.CUB48714@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> References: <20070918115704.CUB48714@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: <15910561634.20070918105904@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177172 Dave: I didn't do too well prediction wise, because I was sure that the Trio would return to school (using Time Turners to simultaneously hunt for Horcruxes), and many of my other predictions were based on that assumption. I was also very wrong in my belief that Ginny would play an important role. She didn't even get to destroy a Horcrux! My biggest "Hit" was Snape being totally motivated by his feelings for Lily -- "Lily's Man, through & through", as lizzyben says. I even got right that Snape's Patronus represented Lily, though I expected it to be a Unicorn. -- What Firenze told Harry about Unicorns seemed so much to apply to Lily as well... Dave, who still wonders if Patroni and Animagus forms can only be "Muggle" animals... From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 18:23:24 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:23:24 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177173 Bart wrote: > So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions against him. Carol responds: Within the context of the Potter books, I don't think that's Draco's goal in going into Harry's compartment on the Hogwarts Express on the journey home in, say, GoF or OoP. There are no teachers on board, no one to get Harry in trouble for hexing him and his friends. If he did the same thing at Hogwarts, I can see him expecting to get detention, but on the train, the best he can expect is Harry's inability to answer his taunts. A more likely response, knowing Harry, is a drawn wand. So Draco, having apparently learned from GoF not to provoke Harry unarmed and unprepared, decides to hex first and talk later. Unfortunately for him, Harry's DA friends attack from behind (as the Weasley Twins did in GoF). Anyway, although the result in both books is Draco and his friends having violent acts performed against them, I don't think that was Draco's goal in either case. Somehow, I can't see the advantage of being hexed, stepped on, and stuffed in the luggage rack for the remainder of the return journey when your enemy won't get so much as a detention. Obviously, Draco's mother was unhappy about it and threatened Harry with retaliation if he attacked her son again, and Draco himself got revenge by Petrifying Harry, leaving him on the train covered by his own Invisibility Cloak, and treading on his fingers for good measure. Even so, those reactions are after the fact and could not possibly have been Draco's goal. Carol, who thinks that provoking a reaction when the reaction is to your own disadvantage is a remarkably foolish thing to do From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 18:27:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:27:32 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco. In-Reply-To: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177174 Bart: > So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions against him. Alla: Snipped your whole post with which I agree completely, but I just want to add something about Draco's behaviour as I see it. Not only I see him as enticing others to perform violent actions against him, I also see him as **coming** to perform violent actions first and the fact that Trio is more often faster, smarter and stronger in my opinion ( well, as Mike shown Harry and Draco are pretty much tied in using curses against each other) IMO takes nothing away from Draco's intentions. Nothing new I am going to say next, feel free to skip :) Every time I think of GoF scene, I think that there is no punishment small enough for Draco. This scene and Buckbeak scene are pretty much two scenes where I not just immensely dislike him - I hate him in those scenes. I have not the slightest doubt that he came to Gryffs apartment uninvited to pick a fight - thus him having Crabb and Goyle with him. He was outmaneured, outplayed IMO, but does that somehow takes away from what I see him **would have done** but for Gryffs' fast response? Nope. I do not think of course as somebody once said that Harry and Co are entitled to beat up Draco every time he opens his mouth. Of course not. But as Mike also shown earlier prior to GoF scene, Harry used curses on Draco - eh once?, prior to that scene. **Once** in four books and Hermione also slapped him, so no I do not think that before that scene Trio overused magic on Draco, like at all. Hmmm, let me think again. Yeah, I do not remember any fights between Harry and Draco resulting in use of magic in PS/SS - POA. Dueling club was sanctioned by the teachers after all. So, did I enjoy Draco getting what he got in GoF scene? **Big time**. I saw the bully coming to continue torturing Harry. I would not be surprised if Lucius shared with Draco all the nicely details of graveyard. And here he comes and tells Hermione that she will be next too. Harry already saw the death of one classmate. Am I surprised that he would not hear to the threats to another? From the son of one of his torturers to boot? Nope, I am not. Alla. From cottell at dublin.ie Tue Sep 18 19:06:31 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:06:31 -0000 Subject: Ariana's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177175 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. > Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened Mus: But he was arguably in a position later to find out if it was Grindelwald. We don't know how far back Priori Incantatem can go, since we've only seen it go back as far as the plot at the time demanded, but after winning mastery of the Elder Wand, was Albus in a position to find out if it had cast the spell that killed her? There's an odd lacuna when he speaks of her death: "And Ariana ... after all my mother's care and caution ... lay dead upon the floor." [DH UK pb: 456] Why only "all my mother's care and caution"? Why no mention of Aberforth, whose refusal to let her welfare take second place to the revolution Albus and Grindelwald were planning led to the fight in the first place? Why no acknowledgement of Aberforth's care and love for her? There's something big that Dumbledore isn't talking about here. " 'Not Albus, he was always up in his bedroom when he was home, reading his books and counting his prizes, keeping up with his correspondence with "the most notable magical names of the day",' Aberforth sneered, *he* didn't want to be bothered with her. She liked me best. I could get her to eat when she wouldn't do it for my mother, I could get her to calm down when she was in one of her rages, and when she was quiet, she used to help me feed the goats.' " [DH, UK pb: 455] I believe Aberforth here, because there's something oddly touching and true about "she used to help me feed the goats". At the same time, Albus implicitly absolves Aberforth of any role in her death ? the information that the fight was three-cornered comes from the younger brother, and all that Albus reports him doing is shouting. He's downplaying Aberforth's relationship with Ariana, and there's something else he downplays as well. " 'The argument became a fight. Grindelwald lost control. That which I had always sensed in him, though I pretended not to, sprang into terrible being. And Ariana ... after all my mother's care and caution ... lay dead upon the floor.' " [....] " 'Well, Grindelwald fled, as anyone but I could have predicted. He vanished, with his plans for seizing power, and his plans for Muggle torture, and his dreams of the Deathly Hallows, dreams in which I had encouraged him and helped him. He ran, while I was left to bury my sister and learn to live with my guilt, and my terrible grief, the price of my shame' " [DH, UK pb: 574-5] The blame is put on Grindelwald by the context ? it's the "something terrible" that results in her death. Suddenly, the plans for seizing power, the dreams of the Deathly Hallows are Grindelwald's, less than a page after Albus has told Harry of "Grindelwald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution", of "the plans we were making", of "at the heart of our schemes, the Deathly Hallows! How they fascinated him, how they fascinated both of us". Albus is airbrushing out his own responsibility here. Why? We know that when Albus came across the Cloak, he "could not resist, could not help taking a closer look" [DH, UK pb: 572], long after he had abandoned plans to master all three Hallows. It would have been awfully out of character, once he had the Elder Wand, if he had not been driven to poke around in its past. I strongly suspect that he knows whose spell killed Ariana. In his version, Aberforth hasn't even drawn his wand, and blame is, rather skilfully, deflected onto Grindelwald. And poor Albus tells us that he was "left to bury his sister". Except that of course he wasn't, because Aberforth was there, having seen the sister he loved and cared for die. But you see, this is about the construction of a narrative by Albus, so naturally it's all about him. Mus, who notes that even Harry's story ends up being about Albus. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 19:13:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:13:59 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177176 > Bart: > In the United States, there is a concept known as "fighting words". It is recognized that words can be used for the purpose of getting someone violently angry. Legally, if someone uses "fighting words" before a fight, and the target of these words starts the violence, neither has any right to sue the other. An acquaintance of mine was arrested for using fighting words on a police official (he had just literally tricked her into unwittingly committing a crime and she told him what she thought; as it turned out, the incident actually got her some good publicity, as the situation was sufficiently absurd as to make the "strange news" columns nationally). lizzyben: Well, that's not true at all. Take it from an American lawyer, here. "Fighting words" do NOT entitle you to take a swing at someone or use violence against them. Words & insults can make people violently angry - that doesn't give you the right to assault them. If that were true, it would vitiate the entire concept of free speech. What's the point of having free speech if people can hurt you simply because they don't like what you have to say? The concept of "fighting words" is a concept from Constitutional Law. While the right to free speech is normally protected by the First Amendment, "fighting words" or enticement are not constitutionally protected, and can be outlawed or punished. So, if you say "fighting words", legally you can be arrested by the authorities, but that still doesn't mean that citizens can decide to use some vigilante justice & assault that person. An assult is an assault, & if someone physically assaults someone else, that person can be charged criminally or sued in civil court. The excuse of "he made me angry" does not cut it. And this is probably why I have such little sympathy for that argument in the Potterverse. Yeah, Draco made Hermione angry - she still assaulted him. Yeah, he's a jerk - the twins still committed an aggravated assault against him. But it's not seen that way in the text. And it makes me think that half of the appeal of the Potterverse is this wish-fullfillment of a world where we can beat up the bad guys w/o consequences. > In Canada, the use of "fighting words", even if it does not cause any negative reaction, can get someone put in jail (a few years back, some minor headlines were made when a customer at a restaurant, frustrated at a waiter's inability to speak or understand English, made fun of his accent after he walked away, was arrested, and tossed in jail; I never found out how that ended up). lizzyben: Jail, yes. (Though a civil liberties org. might fight it.) Physical assualt, never. Bart: > Interestingly enough, professional protesters in the United States are taught techniques on how to anger police officers into using violence without quite stepping over the line of justifying it. One common technique is to put one's face practically against the officer's face and start screaming; it is like having a mosquito in your ear, and not being allowed to swat it. lizzyben: And police still aren't supposed to use violence. They are trained to ignore taunts & keep the peace. There's a very, very good reason for that. Kent State, 1968 Dem. Convention, Tiennaman Square, etc. Police have the arms & the power. And when police let protestors get to them & respond w/violence, it can turn into a police riot. Bart: > There was a movie, PACIFIC HEIGHTS, which was largely based on this concept; Michael Keaton plays a con artist who, staying just barely within the law, gets people angry enough with him to do physical violence, and then sues the hell out of them. lizzyben: Right, because you can't just physically assault people who anger you. It's the law. I'm not sure how this is relevant to HP - is this Draco's sinister plan? Bart: > Sometimes, context and tone of voice are key. If you've gained weight, and your clothes are feeling tight, all you need is for some smart alec to say, "I see you've lost some weight, there." But if you repeat it to someone else, it doesn't sound insulting at all. > > So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions against him. > > Bart lizzyben: Here's the thing - why would he want to? Is it a whole lot of fun to get beat up, subjected to violent actions, publically humiliated, sluggified, stuffed in a luggage rack, knocked unconcious, stepped on? No. So why does Draco persist? Is he a masochist, or what? Well, I think he shows up because the text requires him to show up - because the characters (and readers) need to dish out some payback. Draco (like Dudley) is the whipping boy for the series; he pops up to get beat down. Oh, but he "entices" people to perform violent actions with the things he says, and so they're ENTITLED to hit him. I really, really hate this argument & I'll tell you why. I work for a public interest agency that represents victims of domestic violence. And I can't even count how many times I've heard abusers use exactly that rationale - "Oh, well, she *makes* me hit her with the awful things she says." Or from victims as well - "If I didn't make him so angry, he wouldn't have to hit me. It's my fault". Verbal statements *never* justify using violence against someone; it's just that simple. The biggest epiphany for me is seeing how the entire Potterverse sort of encourages us to take the POV of the abuser rather than the victim. We're supposed to laugh at pathetic Moaning Myrtle, enjoy the Draco stomps & beat-downs, support Ginny's habit of hexing anyone who annoys her... and support the strong macho Gryfs in general over the weak, feminine, obsessive Slyths. Because the victims always deserved it. I have to ask this, it's none of my business, but was JKR ever a victim of domestic violence? These themes seem to keep popping up over & over again in the series. lizzyben From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Tue Sep 18 19:36:50 2007 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (Jazmyn Concolor) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 12:36:50 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Where does the wand go? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F028D2.5060107@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177177 The wand, if in fact an animagus is carrying it, goes to whatever 'null space' clothing and other items carried go to when transformed. Any witch or wizard can learn to turn into an animal, by spell or potion. What makes an animagus is the ability to do it WITHOUT A WAND and at will. Sirius didn't have a wand in Azkaban as they would never allow a wizard to keep their wand there. Being an animagus, he didn't need a wand or potion to change, he could do it at will. Many spells can be done wandless, but it takes tallent and practice. Jazmyn From Nickismom1228 at aol.com Tue Sep 18 18:26:18 2007 From: Nickismom1228 at aol.com (Nickismom1228 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 14:26:18 -0400 Subject: Alcohol In-Reply-To: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <8C9C8388A7D6DF4-F64-612B@MBLK-M41.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177178 Hope it's okay to start a new thread here. I have a question. Maybe this as been discussed ad nauseam before I signed in. Why do you think all ages of students drink in this series? The students as well as the adults imbibe in Butterbeer, firewhiskey, etc. Just wondered if any one else finds that disturbing. Jeannie From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 20:29:04 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:29:04 -0000 Subject: Alcohol In-Reply-To: <8C9C8388A7D6DF4-F64-612B@MBLK-M41.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177179 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Nickismom1228 at ... wrote: > > Hope it's okay to start a new thread here. I have a question. Maybe > this as been discussed ad nauseam before I signed in. Why do you think > all ages of students drink in this series? The students as well as the adults imbibe in Butterbeer, firewhiskey, etc. > > Just wondered if any one else finds that disturbing. > > Jeannie > ***Katie: I don't find it disturbing at all. I don't think butterbeer is very strong at all - maybe the equivalent of non-alcoholic beer (which has an infintesimal amount of alcohol). This is borne out by Winky's reaction to butterbeer, which shocks and surprises the Trio because it's so weak. As for firewhiskey - I don't believe any of the kids has that until book 6 - and they are 16 in book 6. In Ireland - I don't know about the UK - but in Ireland, that is the legal drinking age. So, at least in some civilized places in the world, 16 year olds drinking whiskey is perfectly ok. I personally think it is perfectly ok, but it's just that here in the USA, it happens to be illegal, and we as parents must of course respect that. My husband used to take sips of red wine at his big Italian family's get togethers when he was a little kid - I mean 7 or 8 - and it ddin't hurt him any. I was allowed to sip wine or have a beer at Thankgiving by the time I was 17 or 18, and I'm not even a drinker now at all. I think it's a perfectly innocent and normal thing in the books, and I have no problem with it at all. Katie From pam_rosen at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 20:20:38 2007 From: pam_rosen at yahoo.com (Pamela Rosen) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 13:20:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Alcohol Message-ID: <727793.37868.qm@web30808.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177180 Jeannie: Hope it's okay to start a new thread here. I have a question. Maybe this as been discussed ad nauseam before I signed in. Why do you think all ages of students drink in this series? The students as well as the adults imbibe in Butterbeer, firewhiskey, etc. Just wondered if any one else finds that disturbing. Pam says: I think it's been discussed before, but I am pretty sure the general consensus is that butterbeer is not an alcoholic beverage at all (only house-elves seem to be affected by it) and by the time Harry drinks Firewhiskey, he is seventeen and therefore of age. He does drink mead at 16 with Hagrid and Slughorn, but mead is not a "hard" alcohol, and I believe (someone in the UK please correct me) one can drink wine and beer at 16 in the UK and Europe. If it's the consumption of alcoholic beverages at all by ANY character that you find disturbing, I have to say, no, I don't find people who are of age consuming a glass of wine, mead, butterbeer or firewhiskey disturbing in the least. Pam Lots of great events happening in summer 2008, so start making your travel plans now! Convention Alley 2008: Ottawa, June 19-22 http://community.livejournal.com/conventionalley Portus 2008: Dallas, July 10 - 13 http://hp2008.org/ Accio 2008: Oxford, July 25 - 27 http://www.accio.org.uk/ Terminus: Chicago, August 7 - 11 http://www.terminus2008.org/ From jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net Tue Sep 18 20:27:15 2007 From: jbmwfb65 at sbcglobal.net (jbmwfb69) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:27:15 -0000 Subject: Snape thoughts of Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177181 Severus Snape always said Harry was an arrogant mediocre wizard. Does Harry have mediocre or great powers? jbmwfb69 From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 20:48:50 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:48:50 -0000 Subject: Snape thoughts of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177182 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jbmwfb69" wrote: > > Severus Snape always said Harry was an arrogant > mediocre wizard. Does Harry have mediocre or great > powers? > > jbmwfb69 ***Katie: I think Harry is very good at certain things and very average at other things. Harry is obviously superior at DADA, even beating Hermione in the subject on their OWLs, and leading and teaching the DA...and then there was the whole defeating Voldemort thing...LOL. : ) He's obviously pretty good at potions, even before the Prince, given his OWLs. In fact, if you take a look at his OWL scores, he's got very solid grades. I think a lot of Harry's powers are intangibles - things that cannot be measured by things like OWLs. As Hermione said in PS/SS, FRIENDSHIP, LOYALTY, COURAGE...(paraphrasing here), these are some of Harry's strengths as a wizard and as a person. I would say in these areas, he is absolutely great and powerful. He himself admits to certain magical weaknesses, such as his inability to perform healing charms, and his lack of ability in astrology and astronomy. Hermione is obviously in more advanced classes than Ron and Harry...but that doesn't necessarily mean she is a better witch than they are wizards. And as I stated earlier, Harry's obviously the most talented wizard in the books at fighting the Dark Arts. You must remember that Snape was often remembering James when talking about Harry, and his view was really colored by his love for Lily and his hatred of James. Snape is certainly NOT the most objective person when it comes to Harry's character and talent. In fact, few people in the books are. I wouldn't take Ron or Hermione or Dumbledore's word for it, either. That's why you have to look at what Harry was able to accomplish to see how talented he was, and in my view, he was pretty obviously brilliant in some areas (like DADA), and weak in others. Katie From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Sep 18 20:48:24 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:48:24 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to. In-Reply-To: <15910561634.20070918105904@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177183 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > Dave, who still wonders if Patroni and Animagus forms can only be > "Muggle" animals... > Hickengruendler: I don't know about Animagi, but Dumbledore's patronus was a Phoenix. Therefore at least the Patronus can be a magical creature as well. From sassymomofthree at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 20:49:23 2007 From: sassymomofthree at yahoo.com (Lisa) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 20:49:23 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177184 > Nimisha: > I think that the new headmaster could also have been Longbottom as > he did a lot for the school. JKR has also not mentioned whether Harry > became an auror or not. No mention has been made about Ron and > Hermione's jobs. > > I would really like to know whether any of you know anything about > this. > Lisa: JKR said in her interview just after DH was published that Neville Longbottom was a teacher at Hogwarts -- replacing Professor Sprout in Herbology. She also said that Harry and Ron both became aurors and completely turned around the whole department. Apparently, Ron also works with George in the joke shop, as she said that in a separate, online chat. As for Hermione, she is part of the Magical Law Enforcement Department, if memory serves. Anybody remember if that's the correct department? Lisa From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 21:00:48 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:00:48 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to. In-Reply-To: <15910561634.20070918105904@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177185 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > Dave, who still wonders if Patroni and Animagus forms can only be > "Muggle" animals... Well, Dumbledore had a Phoenix Patronus, does this count :-)? Phoenixes are not exactly "muggle" birds, are they? As for Animagi, I don't know, but it would be really cool if someone could transform into a dragon, for example :-). zanooda, hoping that her message will be posted this time ... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 21:09:44 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:09:44 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177186 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Lisa" > > As for Hermione, she is part of the Magical Law Enforcement > Department, if memory serves. Anybody remember if that's > the correct department? Yes, it is :-), but JKR also said that before Magical Law Enforcement Hermione worked at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. zanooda From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 21:50:20 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:50:20 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177187 zanooda: > Oh, I don't know, maybe we shouldn't compare uncontrolled children's > magic with "real" adult magic. This kind of "flying" happened not > only to Lily, but to other kids too. > > Remember Neville's uncle Algie who hanged the poor boy out of the > window by the ankles, and then accidentally let go? Neville didn't > hit the ground, he "bounced", in his words - some kind of levitation, > maybe? > > Even Harry once found himself on the roof of the school, when Dudley > was chasing him. I don't know if it was levitation or maybe something > else, like spontaneous apparition, but anyway ... . I don't think > these "childhood accidents" show that a person will be more capable > of flying later in life then others. But I could be wrong of > course :-). > > zanooda > What happens to Harry is accidental magic. What Lily's doing isn't. She knows exactly what she's doing and has obviously done it before. Here's how it's described in 'The Prince's Tale' pg. 663: >"Lily, don't do it!" shrieked the elder of the two. >But the girl had let go of the swing at the very height of its arc >and flown into the air, *quite literally flown*, launched herself >skyward with a great shout of laughter, and instead of crumpling on >the playground asphalt, she *soared like a trapeze artist through >the air, staying up too long, landing far too lightly*. >"Mummy told you not to!" To me it's foreshadowing of Snape's 'flying' out the window, which was probably just gliding down to the ground as Lily did. Snape's Witch *my emphasis From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Sep 18 22:02:52 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:02:52 -0000 Subject: Flying (was Re: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177188 Snape's Witch: > What happens to Harry is accidental magic. What Lily's doing isn't. > She knows exactly what she's doing and has obviously done it before. > Here's how it's described in 'The Prince's Tale' pg. 663: snip > > To me it's foreshadowing of Snape's 'flying' out the window, which > was probably just gliding down to the ground as Lily did. > Potioncat: Wouldn't it be just a kicker, if Snape learned to fly from Saint Lily rather than from the Dark Lord? From the description, I don't think he was gliding, it sounded as if he had already covered some distance. I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread or another, but I think Snape looked like a great bat as he flew because he always looks like one. I don't think he actually turned into a bat (or as I had hoped, a Hebridean Black Dragon.) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 22:29:42 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:29:42 -0000 Subject: Flying (was Re: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177189 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > Wouldn't it be just a kicker, if Snape learned to fly from Saint Lily > rather than from the Dark Lord? From the description, I don't think > he was gliding, it sounded as if he had already covered some distance. I also thought that Snape was really flying, just like LV, unless I misunderstood (and that's quite possible:-) what "perimeter wall" means. Harry sees Snape flying in the distance towards the perimeter wall, and I kind of assumed that it meant the wall around the school grounds. I thought this wall wouldn't be too close to the castle. As for Lily, I'm not sure I believe she could fly as an adult. If she could, wouldn't she try to fly away from GH with Harry? zanooda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 22:31:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:31:11 -0000 Subject: Snape thoughts of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177190 jbmwfb69 wrote: > > Severus Snape always said Harry was an arrogant mediocre wizard. Does Harry have mediocre or great powers? Carol responds: Setting aside Snape's charge of arrogance, which is at least partly his subjective response to seeing James in Harry (though often our expectations shape a person's response to us and Harry does, IMO, become more arrogant toward Snape as the books progress), I want to look simply at Harry's "mediocrity." I think we can take for granted that Snape honestly regards Harry as mediocre since he expresses that view not only to Harry himself but to Dumbledore and to Bellatrix. Snape's view is first formed by Harry's inability to answer what he probably considers to be elementary questions about potion-making. (Harry is so far off the mark that he expects to find information on Bezoars in "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi.") To be sure, Harry has had only about two months to study his books and he's been raised by Muggles, so Snape's expectation that he might know at least a bit about potion-making is, at best, unrealistic, but it's possible that Snape is judging Harry's knowledge based on his own at the same age. He's also, I think, checking to see whether there's any truth in the DE speculation that Harry is a Dark Wizard in the making, a prodigy. Clearly not. This first impression is reinforced by Harry's less than stellar performance in Snape's class, where he is easily distracted and frequently omits steps or adds ingredients in the wrong order, as Snape himself would never do (unless he was conducting an experiment). So neglecting to follow directions carefully (not to mention rule breaking outside of class) contributes to Snape's view of Harry (he tells slughorn that he's not aware of having taught Harry anything, meaning not aware that Harry has learned anything in his classes). Occlumency, in which Harry fails to clear his mind of emotion or practice and keeps having the very dream that Snape wants him to block is more evidence (for Snape) that "[Harry's] magic is mediocre" (DH Am. ed. 684), as is Harry's failure to cast nonverbal spells in Snape's DADA class. (At least, unlike Ron at the same point, he can Apparate half an inch across a room.) In terms of schoolwork, Snape is right. Harry is an ordinary student who values Quidditch (or finding out what Draco Malfoy is up to) more than his lessons. His marks seem to be average though his OWL grades (one O, with Es in all the key subjects, even Potions) show that Harry has learned from his classes in spite of himself. Harry earns an O in DADA not, perhaps, through innate ability, but through his unusual education in that subject. He has had the advantage of private lessons in casting a Patronus, not to mention having a Dementor Boggart to practice on (which earns him a bonus point on the OWL but also enables him to deal with real Dementors, at first from a distance and then up close). He also has to learn spells not taught by his current DADA teacher, Crouch!Moody, to compete in the TWT tournament (odd, that, considering that Crouch!Moody wants Harry to win. Maybe he doesn't want any other students to learn useful spells?). Hermione, who looks up the spells and understands the theory, nevertheless somehow gets an E on her DADA exam, either because she's not practicing them with Harry or because she messes up badly on the Boggart portion of her exam, never having been given a chance to practice the spell by Lupin. In short, Harry's DADA expertise is not so much a matter of talent as of the opportunity to learn and practice spells that most of his classmates have not been taught. And, of course, he actually uses Expelliarmus against Voldemort himself, with highly unusual results that have more to do with his wand than with Harry himself. In HBP, his dislike and distrust of Snape seems to block him from further progress in that subject: he never learns nonverbal spells (except the Prince's own Levicorpus/Liberacorpus; ironically, the only new spells that Harry learns in HBP are the ones invented by the teenage Severus Snape). While Harry is by no means incompetent and Snape's label of "mediocre" is slightly off the mark, he seems to be what Americans would call a B student in the subjects that matter (worse than that in History of Magic and Divination). He has to struggle to learn certain spells (IIRC, he had a hard time with Impedimenta) and, except for his unexplained ability to block an Imperius Curse, spells that require concentration--whether Charms, Transfiguration, or DADA--don't come easily for him, nor do mental skills like Occlumency and nonverbal spells. (As for Legilimency, probably his excursions into Voldemort's mind make it unlikely that he'll ever want to learn that skill.) If Snape compares Harry's power of concentration with his own, or his ability to deflect spells with his own, or his complete inability to invent Potions improvements or charms and hexes with his own brilliance, then Harry certainly is mediocre. He's no match for Snape, and if Snape were a loyal DE, Harry would be dead. Many readers (and filmgoers), based on Harry's spectacular Patronus and his survival of multiple confrontations with Voldemort, expected Harry to be a brilliant spellcaster as of DH and thought that he would defeat Voldie through skill or power. Harry's friends, notably Ron and Hermione, seem to think the same thing. Ron keeps repeating that the Elder Wand would enable Harry to defeat LV and that it was a mistake to throw it away; Hermione thinks that it's Harry's own power, not his wand acting on its own, that causes the wand to attack Voldemort early in the book. To his credit, Harry knows otherwise. He knows, and has told Dumbledore, that he has no extraordinary powers (other than Parseltongue and the scar link). He knows that the wand is acting on its own and that he has nothing to do with it (aside from an affinity with the wand that he knows nothing about). When his wand is broken, he feels as powerless as a Muggle. He doubts even the power DD kept telling him that he has, Love. In the end, it isn't skill or power that defeats Voldemort. It's self-sacrificial love, a drop of blood, and pure luck--not to mention the help of his friends and of an ally he didn't even know he had until it was too late, Severus Snape, whose one hope for the defeat of Voldemort rested in the "mediocre" boy he thought was being sent as a pig to the slaughter. In assessing Harry's skills as a wizard, I agree with Snape. Harry has mediocre powers, not great ones. But courage and love triumph over power in the end. Carol, who thinks that Auror training and a normal life probably enabled Harry to develop the skills that Snape (and others) mistakenly thought he needed to defeat LV From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 22:54:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:54:52 -0000 Subject: Flying (was Re: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177191 Potioncat: > Wouldn't it be just a kicker, if Snape learned to fly from Saint Lily rather than from the Dark Lord? From the description, I don't think he was gliding, it sounded as if he had already covered some distance. > > I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread or another, but I think Snape looked like a great bat as he flew because he always looks like one. I don't think he actually turned into a bat (or as I had hoped, a Hebridean Black Dragon.) Carol responds: I know I gave the impression upthread that I thought he had turned into a giant bat, but I was trying to be simultaneously concise and inconclusive. I agree with the posters who said that if he were an Animagus, he would turn into a normal bat, and I *think* that the batlike appearance relates to his black cloak fluttering around him and to the swooping motion of his flight (compare Quirrell's description of him "swooping around like an overgrown bat," SS Am. ed. 288). IOW, he swoops and sweeps and wears black and his cloak is repeatedly described as billowing out behind him, all of which associates him in Harry's mind and the reader's with a giant bat. (I thought it was odd, however, that even the child "Sev" is described as looking like a bat, flapping around in a coat that's too big for him, poor little guy.) Anyway, I don't think that Snape is merely gliding to the ground like Child!Lily. He seems to be actually flying, a power that we've been prepared for by seeing Voldemort do it more than once. Whether Snape learned it from his "master" (and since McG is wrong about their relationship, she could be wrong in her hypothesis as well) or taught himself (as he seems to have taught himself Occlumency and Legilimency), it's impossible to say, just as it's impossible to say whether Snape (or LV) could fly without a wand. My take on it as of this moment is that he was actually flying, in human form, resembling a bat only because of his flapping black cloak; that he taught himself (perhaps after seeing Voldemort do it); and that he could do it without a wand if he had to, but that he would never be thoughtless or careless enough to leave his wand behind (and he was unlikely to meet an opponent who could disarm him). Snape was a very powerful and talented wizard; the whole business of his death by Nagini was a fluke (and only happened, IMO, because JKR wanted that dramatic moment of looking into each other's eyes and needed Harry to see those memories). Anyway, I see no connection between Lily's "flying" through the air like an acrobat on a trapeze and Snape's/Voldemort's ability to fly without a broom for a considerable distance. One is a magical child's accidental discovery, the other the acquired skill of a highly talented and powerful adult wizard. Carol, realizing that interpretation is in the eye of the beholder when all we're given is characters' sense impressions (and their unreliable interpretations of what they see) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 18 23:02:19 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:02:19 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177192 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "coolnim_11" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "James Casey" > wrote: > > > > Have any of you read the first ending that JK said was not fitting > > together? In this one she lets us know what has become of our > > characters such as thier jobs in latter life? Now I will tell you > that in this alternate you still do not > > get the closer you will seek. The only thing still not mentioned > in > > the alternate is headmaster at Hogwarts, I still assume it is > > McGonagall. I was interested in your views on this. > mention of > it yet. > > > > > > > Nimisha: > I think that the new headmaster could also have been Longbottom as > he did a lot for the school. JKR has also not mentioned whether Harry > became an auror or not. No mention has been made about Ron and > Hermione's jobs. > > I would really like to know whether any of you know anything about > this. Geoff: Just for completeness, the full quote from the article I mentioned in post 177123 is: "Harry, Ron and Hermione We know that Harry marries Ginny and has three kids, essentially, as Rowling explains, creating the family and the peace and calm he never had as a child. As for his occupation, Harry, along with Ron, is working at the Auror Department at the Ministry of Magic. After all these years, Harry is now the department head. "Harry and Ron utterly revolutionized the Auror Department," Rowling said. "They are now the experts. It doesn't matter how old they are or what else they've done." Meanwhile, Hermione, Ron's wife, is "pretty high up" in the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, despite laughing at the idea of becoming a lawyer in "Deathly Hallows." "I would imagine that her brainpower and her knowledge of how the Dark Arts operate would really give her a sound grounding," Rowling said. Harry, Ron and Hermione don't join the same Ministry of Magic they had been at odds with for years; they revolutionize it and the ministry evolves into a "really good place to be." "They made a new world," Rowling said. The wizarding naturalist Luna Lovegood, the eccentric Ravenclaw who was fascinated with Crumple-Horned Snorkacks and Umgubular Slashkilters, continues to march to the beat of her own drum. "I think that Luna is now traveling the world looking for various mad creatures," Rowling said. "She's a naturalist, whatever the wizarding equivalent of that is." Luna comes to see the truth about her father, eventually acknowledging there are some creatures that don't exist. "But I do think that she's so open-minded and just an incredible person that she probably would be uncovering things that no one's ever seen before," Rowling said. Luna and Neville Longbottom? It's possible Luna has also found love with another member of the D.A. When she was first asked about the possibility of Luna hooking up with Neville Longbottom several years ago, Rowling's response was "Definitely not." But as time passed and she watched her characters mature, Rowling started to "feel a bit of a pull" between the unlikely pair. Ultimately, Rowling left the question of their relationship open at the end of the book because doing otherwise "felt too neat." Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom: "The damage is done." There is no chance, however, that Neville's parents, who were tortured into madness by Bellatrix Lestrange, ever left St. Mungo's Hospital for Magical Maladies. "I know people really wanted some hope for that, and I can quite see why because, in a way, what happens to Neville's parents is even worse than what happened to Harry's parents," Rowling said. "The damage that is done, in some cases with very dark magic, is done permanently." Rowling said Neville finds happiness in his grandmother's acceptance of him as a gifted wizard and as the new herbology professor at Hogwarts. The fate of Hogwarts Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster ("McGonagall was really getting on a bit") as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at Hogwarts, since Voldemort's death broke the jinx that kept a Defense Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year." >From an interview on the :"Today" show 26/07/07. From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Tue Sep 18 22:43:15 2007 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:43:15 -0000 Subject: Do we really get our closer? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177193 > Snape's Witch: > What happens to Harry is accidental magic. What Lily's doing > isn't. She knows exactly what she's doing and has obviously > done it before. > Here's how it's described in 'The Prince's Tale' pg. 663: > >"Lily, don't do it!" shrieked the elder of the two. > > But the girl had let go of the swing at the very height of > > its arc and flown into the air, *quite literally flown*, > > launched herself skyward with a great shout of laughter, > > and instead of crumpling on the playground asphalt, she > > *soared like a trapeze artist through the air, staying up > > too long, landing far too lightly*. > >"Mummy told you not to!" > To me it's foreshadowing of Snape's 'flying' out the window, > which was probably just gliding down to the ground as Lily > did. > *my emphasis Bev: Maybe you need that 'peskily' essential wand to do it properly. Lily didn't have one as a child so could only sustain elevation for a short time - through practice, since she has done it before. (Surely she must have attempted it after she got a wand since she seemed to enjoy the thrill of it.) From bawilson at citynet.net Tue Sep 18 22:57:32 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 18:57:32 -0400 Subject: Do we really get our closer? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177194 We don't know the details of being an animagus, as none of the Trio within the story becomes one. Yet it seems to me that it is more-or-less an innate ability--refined by study, to be sure, but you either have the potential to become an animagus or you do not. Hence, I am not surprised that one does not need a wand to do it. Perhaps a wand is needed for the initial spell that activates the potential, but I think that after activation it becomes a matter of will, like apparation (which does not seem to need a wand, either.) Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue Sep 18 23:52:03 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 23:52:03 -0000 Subject: FILK: It Just Fell Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177195 It Just Fell (DH, Chap. 8) To the tune of If I Fell by the Beatles http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eh5YwjfaCXk THE SCENE: At Bill and Fleur's wedding, the Patronus of KINGSLEY SHACKLEBOLT delivers some unpleasant news... SHACKLEBOLT (via his lynx Patronus): It just fell into his hands And Lord Voldy's in command Up from the underground. Rufus Scrimgeour now is dead And the OOP has fled Where we won't be found The entire state is his - I might suggest That you Apparate Because his gang is on the way Aurors now join with DEs So run and hide Terror spreads like a disease So leave the bride and groom There is no more time to dance Please make sure you take all your Uncles and your Aunts Let us hope the Ministry Remains without clue And we find safety Away from You-Know-Who. (repeat last six lines) It just fell and they pursue .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 00:10:17 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:10:17 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177196 --- "lizzyben04" wrote: > > > Bart: > > In the United States, there is a concept known > > as "fighting words". .... > > lizzyben: > > Well, that's not true at all. Take it from an > American lawyer, here. "Fighting words" do NOT > entitle you to take a swing at someone or use > violence against them. ... > > An assult is an assault, & if someone physically > assaults someone else, that person can be charged > criminally or sued in civil court. The excuse of "he > made me angry" does not cut it. And this is probably > why I have such little sympathy for that argument in > the Potterverse. Yeah, Draco made Hermione angry - > she still assaulted him. ... > > bboyminn: Draco didn't just talk to Hermione, he threatened her. You as an American Lawyer must understand the difference between Assault and Battery. You can be Assaulted without physical contact. Once physical contact occurs we move into the realm of Battery. Draco threatened Hermione's life. If that makes Hermione reasonably fear for her safety and her life, she is within her rights to defend herself, and her friend are withing their rights to assist in defending her since Draco has two very big goons with him. The point is /words/ CAN constitute an assault, and once assaulted, once you reasonably fear for your life and/or bodily safety, you are allowed to defend yourself. Draco is the provoker. He is the initiator. He continual creates situations where others are threatened and intimidated, and he pay a price for that. That is Draco's only problem. He can start a fight, he just can't finish it. Not unless the advantage is massively on his side. This is classic bullying behavior. Tease and taunt and poke and prod and provoke beyond endurance and when the victim defends themselves, the bully is always the first to cry foul. Yet, the victim as suppose to quietly endure the bullying and stick to the Code of the Playground. Screw that. If Draco can't accept the heat, then maybe he should back off a little. You can't provoke people then whine when they are provoke to action. A little playground taunting is one thing, but out and out threats and intimidation call for action. When no authorities are there to act on your behalf, then you are compelled to act for yourself. There is a line that must be drawn in the sand that tells bully that you have your limits. You will tolerate their thuggish behavior up to a point, but pushed beyond that point, you will defend yourself WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. So says I. Steve/bboyminn From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 00:44:16 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:44:16 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177197 > >>Bart: > > So, I have very little doubt about the ability of a smug, smart > > adolescent kid to entice others to perform violent actions > > against him. > >>lizzyben: > Here's the thing - why would he want to? Is it a whole lot of fun > to get beat up, subjected to violent actions, publically > humiliated, sluggified, stuffed in a luggage rack, knocked > unconcious, stepped on? No. So why does Draco persist? Is he a > masochist, or what? Well, I think he shows up because the text > requires him to show up - because the characters (and readers) need > to dish out some payback. Draco (like Dudley) is the whipping boy > for the series; he pops up to get beat down. Betsy Hp: Which is a big reason, I think, Draco has so many fans. It's very odd to me that JKR doesn't get the impressive attraction of an underdog. (Hence her bewilderment at people liking Draco, Snape and Slytherin in general, I suppose.) When Draco took that beating from Fake!Moody, and *still* managed to stand back up and invoke his father... well, it showed true grit, IMO. And it made me love Draco even more. (Snape not staying down when set on by the Mauraders is another instance where I admired even as I winced.) But for some reason, JKR is all about the winners. Harry Potter doesn't lose a game. He's handsome and rich and when there's a school event, he's having to duck the girls. I can't think of a single time where Harry faced great odds in a school-level situation. Not on page, anyway (so yes, this discounts the ugly duckling time we hear about prior to Hagrid's arrival in PS/SS, though even then he was only unpopular by force). (Hermione is the same way, I think: smart, beautiful, admired and courted by all who see her. Ron's the only real underdog of the Trio.) So yeah, when Draco gets into the Trio's face, he's not doing it from a superior position. He's totally taking on the Man. He might be wrongheaded and crazy to do so, but there's still something there to admire. At least for me. (I wasn't the Man in highschool, myself.) Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 00:48:48 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:48:48 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177198 bboyminn wrote: > > Draco didn't just talk to Hermione, he threatened her. > Draco threatened Hermione's life. If that makes Hermione reasonably fear for her safety and her life, she is within her rights to defend herself, and her friend are withing their rights to assist in defending her since Draco has two very big goons with him. Carol responds: Actually, Draco says, "You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this! [He indicates Ron and Hermione.] Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well--second-- Diggory was the f--" (GoF Am. ed. 229). [His words are cut off by a shower of hexes.] Draco is not threatening Hermione's life. He's merely predicting what will happen now that Voldemort is back and repeating his earlier warning to Harry not to associate with "riffraff." He's insulting both Ron and Hermione, but he's not threatening to harm them himself, only predicting that they'll be killed by Voldie or the DEs. He doesn't even have his wand out, nor do Crabbe and Goyle. A smirk is not a weapon, however annoying it may be. In any case, it's not the prediction of harm by the Dark Lord or the insult to Harry's friends that provokes all three (and the Weasley Twins, attacking from behind) to simultaneously hex Draco and his silent companions. It's the offhand reference to Cedric Diggory, which seems to be merely an uncontemplated correction as Draco realizes that the first death didn't fit the specified category of "Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers." Up until that point, Draco has, i agree, been deliberately provocative. Here, he's merely thinking out loud, correcting his own mistake. But his apparent indifference to a murder that Harry witnessed triggers an explosion of hexes. HRH's reaction is understandable, but it's not self-defense. They are in no danger from Draco, who is merely shooting off his mouth and bragging about being on the winning side. If he had been killed or permanently maimed by their spells, I don't think the "he provoked us" defense would hold up in court, especially given that he and his "goons" were unarmed. Carol, noting to the other Steve that she has no emotional stake in this discussion and is merely trying to interpret the canon fairly and objectively From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 01:04:55 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:04:55 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177199 > >>bboyminn: > > Draco threatened Hermione's life. If that makes > Hermione reasonably fear for her safety and her > life, she is within her rights to defend herself, > and her friend are withing their rights to assist > in defending her since Draco has two very big goons > with him. Betsy Hp: But it's not really self-defense because neither Draco, nor his goons, drew wands. Draco made an ugly statement and was attacked by overwhelming odds, including an attack from behind. The defense attorney could well argue that Hermione feared for her life because of Draco's words. But we as readers know she did not. We were there. And Hermione is not described as frightened. > >>bboyminn: > Draco is the provoker. He is the initiator. He > continual creates situations where others are > threatened and intimidated, and he pay a price for > that. That is Draco's only problem. He can start a > fight, he just can't finish it. Not unless the > advantage is massively on his side. Betsy Hp: Hmm... Actually, the one time the advantage isn't massively on *Harry's* side, Draco wins. But on the whole, yes, Draco does push where a wiser man (or boy) would keep his head down. But he's pushing *against* overwhelming odds. Draco isn't the big man on campus. Harry is. And that's who Draco is continually throwing himself against. > >>bboymin: > This is classic bullying behavior. > Betsy Hp: It's not actually. That's the odd thing about it. Draco picks fights he *cannot* win. He's not picking on the mouse, he's the mouse pulling the cat's tail. Hence him always losing. Bullies generally go for the meek and mild where the win is gauranteed, and that's not what Draco is doing. Fred and George are more typical bullies than Draco. Draco is just... odd. > >>bboyminn: > > Screw that. If Draco can't accept the heat, then > maybe he should back off a little. You can't provoke > people then whine when they are provoke to action. > Betsy Hp: And that's the other odd thing: Draco doesn't often tell. Does Harry ever get questioned about either train stomps? Does Hermione get questioned about hitting Draco? The only reason Harry got detention for beating Draco and cutting him was that a teacher actually witnessed the event or arrived during the bloody aftermath. It's more Draco's fans doing the "whining". And mainly we're just pointing out that Draco is verbal and Harry's physical, and it's Harry who's got the goons picking on people much smaller than them. (Which I suppose gets interperted as "whining" because it's putting down Saint Harry? ) Betsy Hp (has always had a soft spot for the little guy) From 12newmoons at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 00:57:53 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (Laura Horowitz) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:57:53 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177200 Petra wrote: But does Vernon believe that Harry would come to Vernon's loved ones' rescue...does Petunia? Does Dudley? It seems to me that Dudley and his parents have had a bit of a parting of the ways in how they perceive Harry. Laura: Our view of others reflects our general world view, don't you think? So Vernon would never imagine anyone he disliked so intensely putting him- or herself at risk for Vernon, because Vernon would never think of doing such a thing. Petunia and Dudley, though, are a different story. Dudley is the easier one. Harry rescued him once, thereby apparently earning Dudley's permanent respect and gratitude (and well deserved they are too!). So Dudley would expect Harry to do the same again, and I think Harry would. Petunia, though, remains something of an enigma. Why did she even take Harry in the first place? Given what we know about her and her relations with Lily, we might have expected her to want to cut off that part of her life after Lily died. We know that they had polite, if not cordial, relations during the time Lily was married to James, because we know they exchanged Christmas gifts. But Petunia never got over her resentment and shame about her lack of magical status. And 11 years of being responsible for Harry seems to have revived her jealousy and bitterness, if her hissy fit in PS (when Hagrid comes to take Harry) is any evidence. In the Potterverse, love is the most powerful force of all. But family loyalty, even without love, is quite a force itself. Maybe Petunia agreed to take Harry in the first shock of hearing about Lily's death. But her allowing him to stay through his childhood is another matter. DD's first letter must have told Petunia that Harry would be in mortal danger anywhere but in her home. But why did she care, really? Is she a more compassionate person than we have been shown? Is she acting out of guilt for her resentment of Lily and, possibly, her ambivalent feelings about Lily's death? Is she just worried about what people would say if she threw her nephew out with nowhere to go? There's still more to Petunia that we know, it seems to me. But I think that she would know perfectly well that Harry would come to her family's rescue. And that would not make her happy. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 01:15:32 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:15:32 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177201 > Betsy Hp: Draco isn't the big man on > campus. Harry is. And that's who Draco is continually throwing > himself against. Alla: That's a debatable opinion and the one I strongly disagree with. But of course if Draco is just poor dear who hopelessly fights against Big Man on Campus, it is much easier to justify Draco's behaviour, I understand. Just not buying. I mean, Draco with the father who can buy all Governors in his pocket or Harry, who is of course very very well known and who as you said in the other post girls can swoon over sometimes, but the same Harry against whom whole school turn against at the slightest sign of trouble - witness Heir of Slytherin business or Harry supposedly throwing his name in the Goblet. No, to me Harry is a very well known figure and somebody to admire to **sometimes** but just as viciously despised at times. Big man on campus he is not to me. > > >>bboymin: > > This is classic bullying behavior. > > > > Betsy Hp: > It's not actually. That's the odd thing about it. Draco picks > fights he *cannot* win. He's not picking on the mouse, he's the > mouse pulling the cat's tail. Hence him always losing. Bullies > generally go for the meek and mild where the win is gauranteed, and > that's not what Draco is doing. Fred and George are more typical > bullies than Draco. Draco is just... odd. Alla: I completely agree with Steve. Draco does not **know** that he cannot win those fights, does he? Where is the sign that he knows that he is picking the fight that he will not win? I see overwhelming arrogance when he comes to Gryffs compartment and indeed all the signs of bully that Steve described so well. Every time IMO Draco is confident that he will win the fight, since in his mind he is the man on campus. Again, IMO. Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 01:47:45 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:47:45 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177202 > > Betsy Hp: > > Draco isn't the big man on > > campus. Harry is. And that's who Draco is continually throwing > > himself against. > > Alla: > > That's a debatable opinion and the one I strongly disagree with. > > But of course if Draco is just poor dear who hopelessly fights > against Big Man on Campus, it is much easier to justify Draco's > behaviour, I understand. Just not buying. Alla: I am going to make clarification of the sort. I reread my post and I do not want to be accused of misrepresenting your opinion even a little, so I will rephrase a little bit. If Draco is not a Big man on campus, but Harry is and Draco is continuasly throwing himself against Big Man on Campus it is much easier to justify Draco's behavior. I realised that you did not call him poor dear, although I phrased it that way not because I wanted to built a straw man, but because the implication screamed to me from your post. Sorry about that part. Alla. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 01:52:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 01:52:47 -0000 Subject: "Handsome" Harry? Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177203 Betsy Hp: > But for some reason, JKR is all about the winners. Harry Potter doesn't lose a game. Carol responds: Unless, of course, he's injured, which happens a lot. I agree, though, that JKR can't bring herself to allow Harry to lose a game through any fault of his own. The closest is being hit by McLaggen's bat because he's yelling at his Keeper instead of paying attention to the game (HBP am. ed. 415). (Learning how to win is Ron's problem, not Harry's. Learning how to lose gracefully doesn't seem to be a concern for JKR.) Betsy: He's handsome and rich and when there's a school event, he's having to duck the girls. Carol responds: Can you please point out a single reference in canon to Harry (or James, who looks just like him) as "handsome"? Harry is a pale, short, skinny kid with glasses and, at least as a not-quite-eleven-year-old, "knobbly knees." His hair sticks up in the back. He isn't ugly, exactly, though Fleur thinks she looks "'ideous" polyjuiced as Harry, and Fred jokes about himself and George being stuck for life as "specky, scrawny gits." His popularity as a date for the Yule Ball and Slughorn's Christmas party results not from good looks (or the wealth that no one knows about) but from his fame as a TWT champion (GoF; he's just won the First Task) or a Quidditch champion who has also survived an encounter with Voldemort (the Prophet has finally gotten around to publishing Harry's interview with Rita Skeeter). The fickle girls who swoon over Harry are like the girls who followed Viktor Krum around in GoF. Viktor isn't handsome; he's duckfooted and hook-nosed. But he's also an international Quidditch star, and that's all the girls care about. Harry also suffers long periods of unpopularity, for example, when HRH and Neville lose 200 points for Gryffindor in SS/PS or when Harry is suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin or when the Prophet is calling him "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" (oops, that's Byron, but same principle). Anyway, the only boys who are described as handsome are Sirius Black, Tom Riddle, and Cedric Diggory--an arrogant bully, a murdering psycho, and a nice boy killed simply for being in the way. (Gellert Grindelwald may have been described as handsome, too, but he's not much better than Tom.) Harry is like his father in being a natural athlete and a rule-breaker but unlike him in not being arrogant (except around Snape, who, it must be admitted, brought part of that attitude on himself) and not being a bully (despite an occasional instance of retaliating with wands instead of words). He does win a little too often, but he also makes really stupid mistakes (like saying "Voldemort" and attracting Snatchers to the tent). And he misjudges Snape for most of seven books--not exactly a fount of wisdom (though I admit you never said that he was). Betsy: > (Hermione is the same way, I think: smart, beautiful, admired and courted by all who see her. Carol responds: She seems to be regarded as pretty when she's dressed up for the Yule Ball or Bill and Fleur's wedding, but otherwise she's just Harry's bushy-haired friend, who, until Draco's Densuageo spell is deflected onto her and she gets her teeth shrunk by Madam Pomfrey, also has over-large, protruding teeth. "Beautiful" compared with "pug-faced" Pansy Parkinson, maybe, but Parvati Patil's surprise that she looks pretty at the Yule Ball suggests that she normally looks rather plain. Smart, yes, but "courted by all"? Harry doesn't court her. He thinks of her as a sister. Ron, yes. Viktor Krum, yes (because she's not a giggly fan girl). And Neville asks her to the Yule Ball because she's nice to him in Potions. But her only real friend besides Harry and Ron appears to be Ginny, and there's no evidence that they're particularly close. As for her brains, she really is "an insufferable know-it-all" for most of the series (though she's a little too clever for plausibility when it comes to protective spells in DH). And even Hermione is wrong about Snape despite the glaring clue of the detention with Hagrid. She's also wrong about the Hallows being real objects--narrow and close-minded, as Xenophilius says. Ron could, I suppose, qualify as an underdog, but mostly he's an ordinary guy with a sense of humor and a lack of self-confidence not surprising in a kid with six older brothers and a famous best friend. He has his annoying moments, but usually he's my favorite of the three. I loved his symbolic destruction of his self-doubt when he stabbed the locket Horcrux. Carol, who thinks that JKR gives each of her three protagonists a strength (courage, intellect, loyalty) but otherwise strives to make them ordinary kids with very human failings From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 19 01:55:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 21:55:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46F081AD.9030103@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177204 lizzyben04 wrote: > Well, that's not true at all. Take it from an American lawyer, > here. "Fighting words" do NOT entitle you to take a swing at someone > or use violence against them. Words & insults can make people > violently angry - that doesn't give you the right to assault them. Sorry. I just looked it up, and found that if person A uses fighting words, and person B punches person A, then they BOTH have lawsuits. It's just that, in practice, they frequently agree, "I don't sue you, and you won't sue me." However, I only referred to lawsuits, not criminal charges. Bart From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Sep 19 01:27:37 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:27:37 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco Message-ID: <20070919112737.CUC63135@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177205 Alla: I mean, Draco with the father who can buy all Governors in his pocket or Harry, who is of course very very well known and who as you said in the other post girls can swoon over sometimes, but the same Harry against whom whole school turn against at the slightest sign of trouble - witness Heir of Slytherin business or Harry supposedly throwing his name in the Goblet. Sharon: This is so interesting! When Fred and george tried to put their name in the cup, everyone was cheering. So why was it that when Harry appeared to have gotten over the age line and had been chosen, that everyone was so mad at him? Why not clap him on the back and say "yay, Harry, go get 'em?" like they would have if Fred or George (or anyone esle for that matter) had been chosen? I just don't get that. And I don't get the way everyone automatically believes everything that is said against Harry all through the series. To me people in the WW are just really far too ready to believe bad things about him, in spite of the fact that he performed all these heroic acts. Sharon, who does not believe either Harry or Draco are the big man on campus, and if I had to choose anyone it would be Cedric Diggory or Viktor Krum or even Percy (as Head Boy with an ego the size of Australia) From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 19 02:01:57 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:01:57 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Alcohol In-Reply-To: <8C9C8388A7D6DF4-F64-612B@MBLK-M41.sysops.aol.com> References: <20127310.1190137984602.JavaMail.root@mswamui-chipeau.atl.sa.earthlink.net> <8C9C8388A7D6DF4-F64-612B@MBLK-M41.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <46F08315.6040603@sprynet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177206 Nickismom1228 at aol.com wrote: > Hope it's okay to start a new thread here. I have a question. Maybe > this as been discussed ad nauseam before I signed in. Why do you > think all ages of students drink in this series? The students as > well as the adults imbibe in Butterbeer, firewhiskey, etc. Bart: In much of Europe, drinking small amounts of alcohol is common with children; I was 11-12 when I was living in the Netherlands, and on a school trip, beer was served to the kids. I have seen in New York in bodegas "sangria" soda that is sold to kids that contains about 1/2 of 1% alcohol. I suspect that butterbeer has about that much alcohol. Firewhiskey, as far as I recall, was only consumed by adults. Bart From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 02:17:18 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 02:17:18 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177207 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "lizzyben04" wrote: Yeah, Draco made Hermione angry - > > she still assaulted him. ... > > bboyminn: > > Draco didn't just talk to Hermione, he threatened her. > You as an American Lawyer must understand the > difference between Assault and Battery. You can be > Assaulted without physical contact. Once physical > contact occurs we move into the realm of Battery. > > Draco threatened Hermione's life. If that makes > Hermione reasonably fear for her safety and her > life, she is within her rights to defend herself, > and her friend are withing their rights to assist > in defending her since Draco has two very big goons > with him. lizzyben: Do you mean when Hermione slapped Draco in POA? He never threatened her, or even insulted her - she slapped him because he laughed at Hagrid. "Have you ever seen anything quite as pathetic?" said Malfoy. "And he's supposed to be our teacher!" Harry and Ron both made furious moves toward Malfoy, but Hermione got there first -- SMACK! She had slapped Malfoy across the face with all the strength she could muster. Malfoy staggered. Harry, Ron, Crabbe, and Goyle stood flabbergasted as Hermione raised her hand again. "Don't you dare call Hagrid pathetic, you foul -- you evil --" "Hermione!" said Ron weakly, and he tried to grab her hand as she swung it back. "Get off, Ron!" Hermione pulled out her wand. Malfoy stepped backward. Crabbe and Goyle looked at him for instructions, thoroughly bewildered. "C'mon," Malfoy muttered, and in a moment, all three of them had disappeared into the passageway to the dungeons." (POA, 245) Not only did Hermione hit him once, she was about to hit him again when Ron grabbed her arm, and then drew out her wand to hex him. And what do Draco & his two scary goons do? Absolutely nothing. They beat a hasty retreat. I fail to see how Hermione was in any way threatened here - she was the instigator of violence. And I think her actions had less to do w/Draco himself than the timing - she was stressed out & worried about Buckbeak, using a time-turner to take tons of classes, losing sleep... and she was looking for a release for that anger. IMO. Maybe you're referring to the GOF Train Stomp? "(Harry's) hand gripped his wand under his robes. "You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this!" He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now. Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well - second - Diggory was the f-" It was as though someone had exploded a box of fireworks within the compartment. Blinded by the blaze of the spells that had blasted from every direction, deafened by a series of bangs, Harry blinked and looked down at the floor. Malfoy, Crabbe, and Goyle were all lying unconscious in the doorway. He, Ron, and Hermione were on their feet, all three of them having used a different hex. Nor were they the only ones to have done so. "Thought we'd see what those three were up to," said Fred matter-of-factly,stepping onto Goyle and into the compartment. He had his wand out, and so did George, who was careful to tread on Malfoy as he followed Fred inside. ... "Well, let's not leave them here, they don't add much to the decor." Ron, Harry, and George kicked, rolled, and pushed the unconscious Malfoy,Crabbe, and Goyle - each of whom looked distinctly the worse for the jumble of jinxes with which they had been hit - out into the corridor. "Exploding Snap, anyone?" said Fred, pulling out a pack of cards. " (GOF, 470). And yes, what Draco said was horrible. No question. But it was in no way a threat of imminent harm. Draco didn't have a wand drawn, he wasn't directly threatening to hurt HRH; he was taunting Harry about choosing the "losing side." Draco was using verbal jeers, as usual. It's the Gryfindors that respond w/overwhelming physical force - jinxing Draco (and his 2 silent companions) into unconsciousness. Now, if the Malfoys sued HRH for battery & took these incidents to civil court, I can guarantee that they would win. Plaintiff: Your Honor, the Defendant clearly intended to harm the Plaintiff when he (slapped, jinxed) the Plaintiff, he acted to harm the Plaintiff, and his actions resulted in a harmful or offensive touching to the Plaintiff. Thus, all the elements of battery are satisfied. Defense: But Your Honor! He made them angry! (LOL at image of Draco & Harry in the People's Court). Steve: > The point is /words/ CAN constitute an assault, and > once assaulted, once you reasonably fear for your > life and/or bodily safety, you are allowed to defend > yourself. lizzyben: No. Threats of imminent physical harm can constitute an assault. Words, insults, sneers - no. You just don't have the legal right to respond to insults or taunts w/violence. (in the US, at least, Potterverse rules obviously vary). Steve: > Draco is the provoker. He is the initiator. He > continual creates situations where others are > threatened and intimidated, and he pay a price for > that. That is Draco's only problem. He can start a > fight, he just can't finish it. Not unless the > advantage is massively on his side. lizzyben: Yeah, he can start a "verbal" fight, he just can't finish a "physical" one. This is because Harry really has all the power here. Going w/my assault analogy - people will often fight & say horrible things to each other. That's bad, but it's not illegal. When one party responds with physical violence to the other, that's where it crosses the line into criminal assault. Steve: > This is classic bullying behavior. Tease and taunt > and poke and prod and provoke beyond endurance and > when the victim defends themselves, the bully is > always the first to cry foul. Yet, the victim as > suppose to quietly endure the bullying and stick to > the Code of the Playground. lizzyben: Actually, it isn't. Snape bullies his students because he is the one w/the power over these children. Fred & George bully first-years when they give them candy that will make their noses bleed. Draco "bullies" or more like, "attempts to bully" the Trio, and is quickly pwned. He never wins! The text works overtime to convince us that Draco is a bully, yet he's the one who usually ends up hurt at the end of these encounters. But, the text assures us, he deserved physical violence for being such an awful person. Sorry, I can't get on board with that. First of all because I think it's such a dangerous rationale - rationalizing the use of violence as an outlet for anger. Second, these are kids' books! What kind of lesson is that? Get revenge on your enemies, punch them, knock them unconscious, & you won't even get into trouble! When Ginny hexes Smith, Slughorn doesn't punish her - he's actually impressed & invites her to join his club. It's total wish-fulfillment. Steve: > Screw that. If Draco can't accept the heat, then > maybe he should back off a little. You can't provoke > people then whine when they are provoke to action. > > There is a line that must be drawn in the sand that > tells bully that you have your limits. You will > tolerate their thuggish behavior up to a point, but > pushed beyond that point, you will defend yourself > WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE. > > So says I. lizzyben: Well, my line is very different. I liked Hermione's "twitchy little ferret" comeback. If Draco's using your-mama insults, why don't they, I don't know, insult him back? Come on, be creative. Why the immediate resort to violence? In real life, the law's line is quite different. "Extreme prejudice" is an assassination, no? Isn't that a bit extreme? I don't understand the repeated references to "defending yourself" - Draco never used violence or the threat of violence in either of these incidents. He's usually a verbal taunter, who gets some physical violence as payback. That's NOT self-defense. It disturbs me somewhat that the books seems to agree that people have the right to respond to verbal insults w/physical punches & violence. You don't have that right in real life. You *shouldn't* have that right in a civil society. If everyone could use violence against anyone who angered them, the world would look a lot like, well, the Potterverse. lizzyben From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Wed Sep 19 06:58:18 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:58:18 -0000 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177208 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" wrote: > > The fate of Hogwarts > Nineteen years after the Battle of Hogwarts, the school for witchcraft > and wizardry is led by an entirely new headmaster ("McGonagall was > really getting on a bit") as well as a new Defense Against the Dark Arts > teacher. That position is now as safe as the other teaching posts at > Hogwarts, since Voldemort's death broke the jinx that kept a Defense > Against the Dark Arts professor from remaining for more than a year." > > From an interview on the :"Today" show 26/07/07. The major problem that I still have, even after mulling it all over, is the feeling that most things in the Wizarding World have just stayed exactly as they were. The most depressing aspect is the continued feeling that Slytherin House is the abode of the damned. Someone on another thread or even another group, suggested that we started out seeing Harry's world as a Utopia. By the end of the books we know quite clearly that it's a Dystopia but the Epilogue shows us that the inhabitants haven't realised it yet. allthecoolnamesgone From yvaine28 at gmail.com Wed Sep 19 08:12:32 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:12:32 +0800 Subject: The "other ending" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330709190112p1478d297t91fe29d1f272c0bc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177209 Hi, James! Here are links to transcripts of relevant interviews with JKR in which she reveals additional info about the events and characters in book 7: NBC Today Show interview with Meredith Vieira: July 26, 2007 - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0726-today-vieira1.html July 27, 2007 - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0726-today-vieira2.html Dateline: NBC (July 29) Contains some footage from the Today Show http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0729-dateline-vieira.html The grand Bloomsbury.com web chat July 30, 2007 - http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html Hope that helps. :) Meann From salilouisa at googlemail.com Wed Sep 19 10:08:28 2007 From: salilouisa at googlemail.com (Sali Morris) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 11:08:28 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177210 > > Steve: > > This is classic bullying behavior. Tease and taunt > > and poke and prod and provoke beyond endurance and > > when the victim defends themselves, the bully is > > always the first to cry foul. Yet, the victim as > > suppose to quietly endure the bullying and stick to > > the Code of the Playground. > > lizzyben: > > Actually, it isn't. Snape bullies his students because he is the one > w/the power over these children. Fred & George bully first-years when > they give them candy that will make their noses bleed. Draco "bullies" > or more like, "attempts to bully" the Trio, and is quickly pwned. He > never wins! > Sali: > > But it's not all about Harry or the Trio. They have found an effective > method of fighting back, whether or not that should be considered > appropriate. I think that if we look at Neville, particularly in PS/SS, it > is clearer that what Draco is engaged in is bullying. I don't have my copy > of the book to hand but I'm thinking particularly of the time when Neville > arrives in the Gryffindor common room a victim of a leg-locking curse (or > something). And wasn't there a point at a Quidditch match where Neville > takes on Crabbe and Goyle (who are Draco's goons) and gets knocked > unconscious? It's not Gryffindors winning those encounters. And just because > Draco's bullying does not succeed so much with the Trio does not mean that > he is not attempting to bully them or that he does not succeed in bullying > others. This is not the confident Neville of DH. The Neville of the early > books is very much a victim. > > And I don't see the taunting and insulting others in the way that Draco > regularly does as particularly benign. It is not a crossing of quick wits in > the way that more adult arguments/disagreements are (let's face it, Harry > and Ron are not always the speediest on the uptake). Whether or not he hits > his designated target, his words are intended to hurt and undermine. He > finds weak spots and exploits them. He just has to stick the metaphorical > knife in. Leaving aside retaliation, whatever the form, it's most often > Draco getting in first with his, for the most part, unprovoked digs and > sneers and taunts. And when he succeeds with violence (against Harry on the > train), he derives satisfaction from it. No, he does not necessarily deserve > physical punishment at the hands of his peers. Disciplinary action on the > part of those in authority would be more appropriate. But I also don't think > he deserves sympathy in this respect. Verbal bullying and verbal harassment > should be taken seriously, in my view, and it isn't always. Yes, this is a > vested interest issue for me, sorry! > > I know this is only my opinion, but sometimes I see this issue of verbal > harassment being drowned out in the storm of whether or not the physical > response is appropriate (which I think we could all argue/discuss at length > without coming to an agreement :) but then again, there's no fun in > agreeing?). I would like to know if those of you who are strongly against > the Gryffindor's physical reactions to Draco have any issues with the verbal > harassment. In other words, opinions on the action itself, divorced from the > reaction. Also, I'm interested in opinions on what is considered to be the > appropriate, effective reaction to Draco's verbal bullying given that 1. > physical retaliation is inappropriate and 2. 'ignore it and it will go away' > is ineffective. > > Just because I find the verbal aspect more interesting than the physical. > > Sali > > > > > > > > . > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 13:07:23 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:07:23 -0000 Subject: Harry's Grades/Talent, WAS: Snape thoughts of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177211 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > jbmwfb69 wrote: > > > > Severus Snape always said Harry was an arrogant mediocre wizard. > Does Harry have mediocre or great powers? > > Carol responds: <<>> > In terms of schoolwork, Snape is right. Harry is an ordinary student > who values Quidditch (or finding out what Draco Malfoy is up to) more than his lessons. His marks seem to be average though his OWL grades (one O, with Es in all the key subjects, even Potions) show that Harry has learned from his classes in spite of himself. Harry earns an O in DADA not, perhaps, through innate ability, but through his unusual education in that subject. He has had the advantage of private lessons in casting a Patronus, not to mention having a Dementor Boggart to practice on (which earns him a bonus point on the OWL but also enables him to deal with real Dementors, at first from a distance and then up> close). He also has to learn spells not taught by his current DADA teacher, Crouch!Moody, to compete in the TWT tournament (odd, that, considering that Crouch!Moody wants Harry to win. Maybe he doesn't want any other students to learn useful spells?). <> > In short, Harry's DADA expertise is not so much a matter of talent as of the opportunity to learn and practice spells that most of his > classmates have not been taught. And, of course, he actually uses > Expelliarmus against Voldemort himself, with highly unusual results > that have more to do with his wand than with Harry himself. In HBP, > his dislike and distrust of Snape seems to block him from further > progress in that subject: he never learns nonverbal spells (except th Prince's own Levicorpus/Liberacorpus; ironically, the only new spells that Harry learns in HBP are the ones invented by the teenage Severus Snape). > > While Harry is by no means incompetent and Snape's label of "mediocre" is slightly off the mark, he seems to be what Americans would call a B student in the subjects that matter (worse than that in History of Magic and Divination). He has to struggle to learn certain spells (IIRC, he had a hard time with Impedimenta) and, except for his unexplained ability to block an Imperius Curse, spells that require concentration--whether Charms, Transfiguration, or DADA-- don't come easily for him, nor do mental skills like Occlumency and nonverbal spells. (As for Legilimency, probably his excursions into Voldemort's mind make it unlikely that he'll ever want to learn that skill.) <<>> > In assessing Harry's skills as a wizard, I agree with Snape. Harry has mediocre powers, not great ones. But courage and love triumph over > power in the end. > > Carol, who thinks that Auror training and a normal life probably > enabled Harry to develop the skills that Snape (and others) mistakenly thought he needed to defeat LV ***Katie: I have to disagree. In terms of his OWLs, I think getting an "Exceeds Expectations" in almost every catagory in pretty remarkable. I don't get the feeling that these grades are equivalent to the "A,B,C..." grading scale in America - especially because JKR's reference point was British schools, which have an entirely different grading system than American schools. Maybe some of our British members can enlighten us as to the grading system in primary and secondary education in the UK, but I know that, as a college student who attended University College, London for 2 years, it took this American quite awhile to adjust to a different measure of acedemic acheivement. My point is, I think "Exceeds Expectations" is just that - it's above average, but not perfect. So, based on his OWLs alone, I would say Harry is an above average student - not because of his dedication to schoolwork, but because of an innate intelligence that helps him to get through. His DADA abilities are definitely due in part to special tutoring and the extremely unusual circumstances of having to fight Dark Wizards frequently throughout his adolescence...but it's equally a measure of his innate talents in this area. Had he not had a natural gift for this kind of magic, he would have been dead in book 1. Even Lupin (paraphrasing, without book) notes that Harry's abilities to produce a Patronus are remarkable for someone his age. Some of the stuff that Harry seems to learn easily is very advanced magic, and I don't think that it's a fluke. He definitely has a natural aptitude for learning this kind of magic. He does have to struggle to learn other spells in other areas, but I don't think that necessarily reflects on his DADA abilities. For example, I am remarkably good at writing, history, and literature. I would say I am definitely an "O" in these areas...however, put a fifth grade math book in front of me, and I struggle. Because I am horrible at math doesn't mean I am overall not very intelligent - it just means I'm good at some things and not so good at others. Harry is the same. Saying he's an all-round mediocre or average student isn't really accurate. He's extremely talented at some things and extremely average at others. Katie, thinking Harry's probably a lot like my own dear husband - a very intelligent guy who never liked school all that much. From nitalynx at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 13:30:11 2007 From: nitalynx at yahoo.com (nitalynx) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 13:30:11 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177212 Sali wrote: > > I would like to know if those of you who are strongly against > > the Gryffindor's physical reactions to Draco have any issues with the verbal > > harassment. In other words, opinions on the action itself, divorced from the > > reaction. Nita: Well, I do have issues with verbal harassment. And not just in a detached, objective way either. However, I think the way it's shown in the Trio-Draco interactions is unrealistic and unhelpful for those who happen to be on the receiving end of verbal abuse in real life. Real verbal bullies are a threat to one's psychological well-being exactly because they attack when you can't or won't retaliate effectively, and they're most harmful when you have no recourse at all (i.e., no friends, no support network, no safe space). The Trio have each other and the house of Gryffindor behind them, the staff like them, *and* they can and do retaliate easily. So I see no reason for harassed readers to strongly identify with them in these scenes other than the satisfying ride of wish-fulfilment (which is fine with me). > > Also, I'm interested in opinions on what is considered to be the > > appropriate, effective reaction to Draco's verbal bullying given that 1. > > physical retaliation is inappropriate and 2. 'ignore it and it will go away' > > is ineffective. Nita: 1) Verbal retaliation has already been mentioned, I believe. 2) It's hard to suggest something in Draco's case specifically because, as someone said, his behaviour seems irrational, possibly unrealistic and a bit too convenient for the author. 3) And hey, while we're talking about the author, why don't we ask her? :) "TELL SOMEONE, whether it is your Mum, Dad, Aunt, Uncle, a teacher, a brother, a sister, an adult friend ? just tell someone. If the first person you tell doesn't seem to understand how bad the problem is, tell somebody else. I know that it is very hard to admit that you are being bullied, but it is absolutely crucial if you are to end the misery. Life in school can be very tough and any adult who has forgotten that is an idiot, so don't be ashamed... just tell." http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=78 That's not a bad bit of advice, IMO. Even if others can't do anything to end the harassment, I believe having someone to talk to is beneficial in itself (again - support network, safe space). At the very least, it helps lessen the crazy-making effects of emotional abuse. Unfortunately, Ms Rowling doesn't believe in this solution enough to even try it in any of her books. Or perhaps she's simply more interested in dramatic wish-fulfilment than the boring realistic stuff us mortals have to do, which isn't even all that effective... On the other hand, there *is* some realistic bullying in the series, and Neville, Severus and Luna don't get to deliver amazing smack-downs with the help of friends while the readers cheer. It's an interesting imbalance of realism, IMO :) Nita, planning to post something more coherent on wish-fulfilment soon From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 19 14:38:34 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:38:34 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Grades/Talent, WAS: Snape thoughts of Harry In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4578C0BF-57B5-4E5F-B9E1-5CAF45E5900B@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177213 On 2007, Sep 19, , at 05:07, Katie wrote: > ***Katie: > > So, based on his OWLs > alone, I would say Harry is an above average student - not because of > his dedication to schoolwork, but because of an innate intelligence > that helps him to get through. This is one thing that has surprised me about the commentary on Harry's schoolwork (it has come up before). People think that Harry is somewhat lacking in his dedication to his school work. But, from what I can tell, he is actually quite dedicated to his school work. Frequently, he, Ron, and Hermione are the last people left in the common room and they are working on their homework. The fact that he goofs off in a class that is basically fraudulent (divinations) is understandable. It is hard to work hard if you think a subject is completely invalid. And who hasn't ignored a subject that is taught in such a boring manner as to be completely without interest (history of magic). At one point, Harry even remarks that he thinks it could have been interesting, except for the way Binns taught it. It is true that they are not working on their homework 100% of the time. They DO have other distractions that are more important to them (and more interesting to read about), but they seem to spend a lot of time on it - more so than quite a few other students. If they struggle with some of the spells and charms and potions and whatever, it doesn't mean that they are not so good at them, it could mean that they are simply really, truly difficult. That seems to be a concept that is hard for some American students to comprehend. It is OK to struggle to get something that is really difficult. I am a substitute teacher and I see many students, who seem to think that if anything is remotely difficult, they just don't have to do it. Just complain to the teacher that they didn't get it and the teacher will re-teach it over and over again - thus sparing them from getting more work, and even more difficult content. It seems to me that Harry really is an above average student. He isn't as brilliant as Hermione, but students that intelligent are rare. Kids generally choose friends who are fairly similar to them in intelligence and I think this is the case here. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zanelupin at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 14:40:09 2007 From: zanelupin at yahoo.com (KathyK) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:40:09 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177214 > Jen: I just realized we never heard a peep from Tiger Patronus > about the prediction contest! Oh well, some of the questions didn't > even appear in DH - did we even find out head boy/girl during year > 7? No late-in-life magic either *glares at JKR*..... > > So, here's a chance to impress each other with our awe-inspiring > predictions and mutter and grumble about predictions JKR so > *obviously* would have used if she'd been creative enough to think > of them herself. ;) KathyK: I didn't enter the contest but I did make some random predictions way back when. My winningest predictions: -Snape will die a horribly painful death at the hands of LV (I really wanted that one!) -One Weasley will die and hopefully not Percy -Percy will live (I also hoped, "he reunited with his family in a way that didn't mean he had to grovel and beg *thier* forgiveness," because I believe the rift was the fault of both Percy *and* his family) -Harry will live My big misses: -Harry will find all the unaccounted for Horcruxes and he will not be among them -Petunia will impart some interesting and important knowledge about Lily -We'll learn Snape killed Dumbledore to save himself but will do something to redeem himself. Harry, though, will never forgive him The others were more wishful thinking than actual predictions and included: -Hagrid and his annoying brother will die -JKR will fully and completely explain the Fidelius Charm and all questions raised about said charm (grr...) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 19 14:46:53 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 06:46:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8183F2C0-7A6D-4DA9-89D2-B76A8BF3D324@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177215 On 2007, Sep 19, , at 06:40, KathyK wrote: > My big misses: > > -Petunia will impart some interesting and important knowledge about > Lily I wouldn't consider this a complete miss. True, Petunia didn't give the information to us directly, but through Snape's memories of Petunia and Lily, we DO get important knowledge about Lily. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 15:14:22 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 15:14:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177216 > --- "kneazlecat54" wrote: > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 3, The Dursleys Departing > QUESTIONS > > Oh, the Dursleys *shakes head* > > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry ... what do you think it > means? Is Vernon ... consistent with ...other books? Aussie: Some things stay the same, and some things remain constant. Vernon is basically constant. He is only related though marriage to Harry, while Petunia and Dudley are blood relatives to Lily. > 2...What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and > how does it make her feel? Aussie: Because of things we wee later, she may be seeing the things she feared from the only school aged wizard we find out she met - SNAPE. He hit her with a branch using magic. If Petunia met other wizarding students in her youth, she may not have become so biased. (And yes, she also saw Lily's eyes) > 3. ... Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us > Petunia's back story in another context. Aussie: The Dursleys deserved a bit more background to be given to understand them. She timed that suprise well. > 4. ...Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is > there unfinished business between them? Aussie: The Dursley's Greatest Fear was if neighbours found out about Harry being a wizard. They hid that fact from everyone. To restore that, Petunia should be proud of her nephew ... and her sister. > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors ... something > life-changing happened to Dudley ... What do you think Dudley > saw, and how did it change him? Aussie: Dudley always had someone to support him - Dad, Mum or his gang. If Harry even looked like doing something against him, he'd run to his mummy ("He's doing it again"). Dudley saw himself without loving relatives or friends facing danger ... exactly what Harry saw every day of his life at the Dursleys until Hagrid brought the Happy 11th Birthday cake. > 6. ...Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? Aussie: Good on ya, big D. > 7. ...Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout > their lives? Aussie: Dudley (17 years later) would try to visit Harry, or let him visit his home, and be willing to let his kids know there's a wizard in the family. ... Who knows. Maybe Victorie was Dudley's daughter. > 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship > with his (Dudley's) parents? Aussie: What do you expexct us to say. Vernon will be so worried, he'll have an early heart attack and Petunia will look for a wizard to remarry? No. Dudley may show more interest in finding out about the wizarding world as rebellion against Vernon, but not much more. > 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or > Barty Crouch Jr. ... Hagrid ... Mundungus Fletcher Aussie: Dudley never even knew they existed. He was caught unaware. A shocking experience. Bellatrix had too much in common with the dementors, so she came out as mad as she went in. Barty was young when he went to Azkaban. It effected him badly, and the kiss in GoF didn't help either. Hagrid has had a lot of bad experiences, and dementors bring all those feelings back at the same time. He dreaded going back to Azkaban. Mundungus follows a life of crime, and knew he was risking Azkaban, but kept stealing. He could probably handle dementors better than being away from a pub. The worst victims of dementors were the muggle-borns waiting for Umbridge to call in. If they were scared about what would happen to them in the trial, the dementors depressed them more and didn't allow them to prepare a defence. > 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive > every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? ... > Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. > What can we learn about Harry from this? Aussie: PS/SS - Hogwarts Express introduced us to more of the Wizarding World CoS - Rescued from a barred window was rebellion to Vernon. PoA - Blowing up his aunt and running away showed independence GoF - Floo powder after destroying the heater and choking Dudley with the twins' toffee. OotP - Dementors and Howlers, not the best Muggle relationship. Loved meeting Tonks. HBP - Except for this book, the Dursleys felt attacked leading up to Harry's departure. This time, they sat with Dumbledore for a friendly chat over a drink (that bounced on their heads). DH - Didn't you love Vernon requested Kingsley but was told he is guarding the Prime Minister, then he comes to protect someone greater than the Prime Minister, Harry. > 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? ... > How would decisions be made without him? Aussie: Moody would be the next senior and experienced Order member. Follow him ... oops, that leadership didn't last long ... > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while > they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? Aussie: Vernon would change jobs and Dudley change schools. They would have needed support of they would have gone back to Privot Drive too soon. > 13. ...Hedwig ... is confined to her cage ... Did you see this > as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it > meant that way? Aussie: Harry was going to need to hide. Hedwig would have been too recogniseable. Jo had to make her a casualty of war. She always wanted us to understand Voldemort is Evil, and so some close to Harry had to perish. (I didn't expexct it thought) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 19 15:27:26 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 07:27:26 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <14C373E7-E4EB-43A9-A16D-E70C1E252672@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177217 On 2007, Sep 19, , at 07:14, Hagrid wrote: >> 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors ... something >> life-changing happened to Dudley ... What do you think Dudley >> saw, and how did it change him? > > Aussie: > Dudley always had someone to support him - Dad, Mum or his gang. If > Harry even looked like doing something against him, he'd run to his > mummy ("He's doing it again"). Dudley saw himself without loving > relatives or friends facing danger ... exactly what Harry saw every > day of his life at the Dursleys until Hagrid brought the Happy 11th > Birthday cake. I just thought of something. Maybe Dudley's greatest fear is that he will somehow turn into Harry and be treated like him by his parents and friends. That would tend to give him a bit of empathetic understanding of Harry. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 16:09:36 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:09:36 -0000 Subject: Ariana's death In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177218 --- "Carol" wrote: > > I'm curious as to what others think regarding Ariana's death. > Dumbledore himself isn't sure what happened and Harry doesn't want > to know. Obviously, JKR didn't want to tell us, either. She > deliberately left it open to speculation. ... > If it was Grindelwald, was he trying to kill Aberforth, or did > his magic completely escape his control? (Apparently, an AK > isn't the only spell that can kill. Ariana managed to kill her > mother through accidental magic.) > > Assuming that Albus didn't actually cast the spell, to what degree > is he responsible for his sister's death, in your view? > > Carol, Aussie now: I am reminded of the duel in GOF when Hermione was hit and had her teeth lengthened, although she wasn't fighting. "Jets of light shot from both wands, hit each other in midair, and ricocheted off at angles - Harry's hit Goyle in the face, and Malfoy's hit Hermione." Also, near the end of OOTP, at least 6 DA members ... "finished using a wide variety of the hexes and jinxes Harry had taught them, Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle resembled nothing so much as three gigantic slugs squeezed into Hogwarts uniforms" If any spell caste in the Albus/Aberforth/Grindy fight had needed immediate attention to stop the victim suffocating or similar, then it would have been impossible to work out who gave the fatal spell. But one key word was "REGRET". Hermione said Horcrux makers needed to show REGRET During Harry and Voldemort's last duel, Harry hit a nerve when he asked Tom about REGRET Rita said the final battle between Albus and Grindlewald was almost a surrender ... ie. the Dark Wizard showed REGRET. So if Grindlewald felt greatly responsible for Ariana's death, that could have been a reason to show regret at that time. That could have been the reason the Elder Wand went to Albus. aussie (who kept asking questions about Grindlewald since the first time I saw the Chocolate Frog Card) From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 16:50:21 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:50:21 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? - Eileen Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177219 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > > Imagine ... a huge rather battered box ... "This is for you," > > You open the box ... neatly written notes ... typed manuscript > ... a collection of written, but rejected moments from > DH. (And, OK, maybe from the other 6 books too.) > > ... What event ... is one you'd like to read? Aussie: Eileen Prince ! JKR held onto that bit of Snape's history for 6 books. In interviews, she toyed with bringing out Eileen's book during CS, but waited until HBP. Then Eileen's name only got a mention a handful of times. She was so important to Severus that he called himself HBP. So what was Eileen's history. I know JKR would have loved to tell us, but that subplot may have eclipsed some Hallows story line. - Eileen went to school at the same time as Tom Riddle - Eileen may have been in Slytherin with Tom - Hermione couldn't find any other wizarding family called "Prince" - - Was she muggle-born or from wizard lineage? SUGGESTION: If Star Wars had not already had Luke and Leia as twins seperated from birth, JKR may have not left Eileen's history in the box. Her face, cowering from her man and potion-making ability sounds like Merope Gaunt, Tom Riddle's mother. What if Merope had twins, but the Prince family adopted baby Eileen. The Orphanage was scared of Tom, so never mentioned he had a sister. They would get Hogwarts letters at the same time and go to school not knowing each other (unless Eileen inherited a photo of her father when she was adopted). That would also explain how Snape was so good at things like his Uncle Tom Riddle (Legilimency, knowing more Dark Arts than Dumbledore, knowing cuses before coming to Hogwarts, flying without a broom, looking Voldemort in the face when no-one else could, creating curses ...) Luckily, Harry didn't know if this was true either, or his son Albus, may have had a different middle name. Aussie From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Wed Sep 19 17:24:46 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:24:46 -0000 Subject: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177220 aussie: Did James' parents go to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle? How likely is that? What implications are there? Snape's mother had a potions book that came out the same time Tom was at Hogwarts, so the age would be about right for James' parents to have been there too. Maybe other families that rivalled Tom Riddle during his school years were the reason so many families seemed to be almost wiped out ... (eg. Bones) When Voldemort had the choice of going after the Potters or the Longbottoms, could that have influenced his decision? Aussie (hoping I haven't had to many posts today) From starview316 at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 19 17:18:03 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 17:18:03 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177221 > > >>lizzyben: > > Here's the thing - why would he want to? Is it a whole lot of fun > > to get beat up, subjected to violent actions, publically > > humiliated, sluggified, stuffed in a luggage rack, knocked > > unconcious, stepped on? No. So why does Draco persist? Is he a > > masochist, or what? Well, I think he shows up because the text > > requires him to show up - because the characters (and readers) need > > to dish out some payback. Draco (like Dudley) is the whipping boy > > for the series; he pops up to get beat down. Amy: Perhaps so, but in a discussion condemning Harry the character for beating up on Draco, "the author made me do it" doesn't fly as an excuse. I'm not against criticizing JKR for the way she writes her universe, no more than I'm against condemning certain characters as though they exist outside of the author's mind -- but the two can't mesh in the same argument. Draco might have any number of excuses as to why he goes looking for a fight -- masochism, a desire for attention, whatever -- but if you're going to argue why he's always there looking for a fight in the first place, the finger can't be pointed at JKR as though Draco's a puppet, while at the same time arguing against the others as though they are entities that exist outside of JKR's head. > Betsy Hp: I can't think of a > single time where Harry faced great odds in a school-level situation. > Not on page, anyway (so yes, this discounts the ugly duckling time we > hear about prior to Hagrid's arrival in PS/SS, though even then he > was only unpopular by force). Amy: Um, the whole of OotP comes to mind, if you ask me. The time when Harry was kicked off the team with Fred and George for beating up on Draco? I don't know what you mean by "facing great odds in a school- level situation", exactly; do you mean public humiliation? Situations in which Harry looks like a loser? Getting detentions for bad conduct? Because he's had all those. (The "Potter Stinks" badges in GoF and the Lockhart scene in CoS; the Snape-reading-Rita's-article scene in GoF; the Umbridge and Sectusempra detentions in OotP and HBP, respectively.) These are all things that would typically happen on a school-level. I don't know if you mean situations in which Harry looks like a loser and stays one, which doesn't happen -- but this doesn't happen on Draco's part, either (you were just arguing how Draco literally seems to bounce back every time he's kicked down; remember that he brings at least a good portion of the school's population with him most of the time). Just because Harry rarely loses to Draco doesn't mean that he never loses, period, even on a school-level. Betsy Hp: > So yeah, when Draco gets into the Trio's face, he's not doing it from > a superior position. He's totally taking on the Man. He might be > wrongheaded and crazy to do so, but there's still something there to admire. At least for me. (I wasn't the Man in highschool, myself.) > > > Amy: Well, I agree that Draco is definitely not in the superior position during his confrontations with Harry. But taking on the Man? Really? Throughout the HP books, Harry's average hangout group consists of Ron and Hermione ( and Fred and George on frequent enough occasion to be mentioned). It's been mentioned on this list before that Harry barely knows the names of the students in his year, let alone in the rest of the school. *Hermione* is able to convince a group of students to join a Defence group led by him in order to pass their DADA OWLs. Could he convince half the school body to join in a smear campaign against one student? I don't know, I have yet to see evidence of it. And yeah, I realize that the Big Man on Campus-while-at-the-same-time- having-only-two-close-friends contradiction did happen in HBP, just thought I'd mention that this is the one book in which Draco didn't get into the Trio's faces. Amy From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 19 18:16:33 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:16:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's Grades/Talent, WAS: Snape thoughts of Harry Message-ID: <9673854.1190225794852.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177222 From: Laura Lynn Walsh >The fact that he goofs off in a class that is basically fraudulent >(divinations) is understandable. It is hard to work hard if you >think a subject is completely invalid. Bart: He may think the subject is invalid, but JKR shows that, while Trelawney's interpretive skills leave something to be desired, her source material is solid (she is like Dr. Watson, who, when challenged by Sherlock Holmes, spots all the evidence, but comes up with completely wrong deductions). A running joke is that Trelawney sees that if she cuts the arms and legs off a frog, and tells it to jump, it doesn't jump, but concludes it's because removal of the limbs causes the frog to go deaf. Laura: >And who hasn't ignored >a subject that is taught in such a boring manner as to be >completely without interest (history of magic). At one point, >Harry even remarks that he thinks it could have been interesting, >except for the way Binns taught it. Bart: That seems to be all too typical of history classes. Usually, the politicians get in, and by the time they agree on something that is acceptible, anything of interest has long since been removed. Can anybody see Ben Stein playing Prof. Binns? Anybody? Anybody? Bart From starview316 at yahoo.ca Wed Sep 19 18:11:28 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:11:28 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177223 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nitalynx" wrote: > Nita: > > 1) Verbal retaliation has already been mentioned, I believe. Amy: I know that it's probably the physical retaliation that sticks most heavily in most people's minds, but the Trio actually DO verbally retaliate against Draco. The QWC scene comes to mind, when they're in the forest; Harry's remark about Warrington to Pansy in OotP; and of course, Harry's slur against Narcissa in GoF, which then caused Draco to fire the first hex (and get turned into a ferret). Verbal retaliation did NOT help the problem, imo. Nita: > "TELL SOMEONE, whether it is your Mum, Dad, Aunt, Uncle, a teacher, a > brother, a sister, an adult friend ? just tell someone. If the first > person you tell doesn't seem to understand how bad the problem is, > tell somebody else. I know that it is very hard to admit that you are > being bullied, but it is absolutely crucial if you are to end the > misery. Life in school can be very tough and any adult who has > forgotten that is an idiot, so don't be ashamed... just tell." > > http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/faq_view.cfm?id=78 > > That's not a bad bit of advice, IMO. Even if others can't do anything > to end the harassment, I believe having someone to talk to is > beneficial in itself (again - support network, safe space). At the > very least, it helps lessen the crazy-making effects of emotional abuse. > > Unfortunately, Ms Rowling doesn't believe in this solution enough to > even try it in any of her books. Or perhaps she's simply more > interested in dramatic wish-fulfilment than the boring realistic stuff > us mortals have to do, which isn't even all that effective... Amy: I don't know if I'd say that JKR doesn't use this solution in her books ... no, none of the "bullied" people ever actually run to tell a teacher, but there have been times when teachers got involved: McGonagall in PS, just after Draco almost stole Neville's Remembrall - - she sent him back to his table; Remus's presence in the train compartment in PoA sent DCG away, as it did later on when Draco was mocking Harry about having fainted. Again, Draco keeps coming back. This is what's interesting to me about the bullying themes in JKR's books -- because like you said, at times she does seem to actually get it (with Neville, Luna, and Snape). And at others, she doesn't really quite get it, but she does present all facets of it. The Trio deals with Draco in every way possible (for kids, anyway) -- again, the physical attacks tend to stick the most in people's minds, but it tends to be forgotten that they have also tried ignoring Draco, they've verbally lashed out at him, and other people have (to a much lesser extent, admittedly) gotten involved to send him away. And it doesn't send him away. And I realize that it's weird to everyone that Draco just keeps coming back. Maybe it is JKR's set-up to make us cheer for the good guys (although I don't like the implication I have to be manipulated into what to cheer for, and when; it's not like there's an Imperius curse on the books, readers can choose for themselves what they like about the heroes and what they don't.). If it is, though, a lot more goes into it than just making sure Draco is there at the right moment to be beaten up; because even a six-year- old wouldn't cheer for Draco et al being beaten up if Draco hadn't...for lack of better words, been getting on everyone's nerves and going unchecked for it for a fairly long time (read: almost the entire book). *That* is something that some readers CAN relate to, which, I assume, is why there are so many people cheering in the first place. It's not just that Draco starts the particular confrontations in which he gets beaten up; if it were, it'd be impossible to see why Draco would keep coming back. But most of the time, Draco *does* make fun of the Trio with little-to-no retaliation before they actually strike, which is what I think most of the cheering squad responds to. I'd say the amount of times Draco verbally goes after the Trio, and the number of times they retaliate physically, is about a 3:1 ratio. You can't see why Draco would keep coming back for that? They're not the best odds in the world, and yes, it still seems like wish fulfilment, but there are realistic aspects there, too. From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 19 18:21:06 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 14:21:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Trelawney Award, part II Message-ID: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177224 Bart: In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" To give my example: Snape being friends with Lily BEFORE Hogwarts. It certainly made a lot of sense in 20/20 hindsight, but I did not see that one coming at all. Bart From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 18:30:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:30:01 -0000 Subject: Dudley's Dementor encounter (Was: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing) In-Reply-To: <14C373E7-E4EB-43A9-A16D-E70C1E252672@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177225 Aussie wrote: > > Dudley saw himself without loving relatives or friends facing danger ... exactly what Harry saw every day of his life at the Dursleys until Hagrid brought the Happy 11th Birthday cake. > Laura replied: > I just thought of something. Maybe Dudley's greatest fear is that he will somehow turn into Harry and be treated like him by his parents and friends. That would tend to give him a bit of empathetic understanding of Harry. Carol responds: I think both of you may be confusing Boggarts, which impersonate a person's (or wizard's?) greatest fear, with Dementors, which cause people (wizard, Squib, or Muggle) to relive their worst experiences. Dudley can't be reliving anything that has not yet happened to him. I do agree that his greatest fear is Wizards (later, no doubt, it becomes invisible Dementors), but that's because of what has already happened to him. The only bad things we know of that have happened to Dudley before the Dementor attack are the "giant" Hagrid breaking down the door of the hut and giving him a pig's tail and the Weasley Twins giving him a candy that caused his tongue to grow about four feet long, causing him to choke and his mother to pull on it and make his pain and fear even worse. When the wizards arrive at 4 Privet Drive in GoF before the toffee incident, he puts his hands on his bottom to protect it (obviously remembering the pig's tail). When the Dementor attacks him, he covers his mouth (in part because Harry is telling him to do so, but in part, IMO, because he remembers what happened to his tongue last time magic was used on him). I'm quite sure that those incidents are the experiences Dudley relived during the Dementor attack--the worst experiences of his life, which is what both Lupin and Hagrid say happens when a Dementor is sucking out a person's happiness. Harry, we know, relives his own worst memory, his parents' murder, in all of his encounters with Dementors. That memory is not his greatest fear; it has already happened. In contrast, a Boggart reflects a person's (or wizard's?) worst fear, realistic or otherwise, whether that's the full moon (Lupin), a Dementor (Harry), the death of a family member (Molly), or failing marks (Hermione, at least pre-HBP). What Dudley's Boggart would be, assuming he could see one, we don't know. What his worst experiences are, we *do* know--and so should Harry if he thought about it. And it's those experiences, not a fear that has not yet materialized, that he would have relived when the Dementor was sucking out his happiness and preparing to suck out his soul. Note that Dudley isn't immediately grateful to Harry. In fact, he blames Harry, thinking that his cousin cast some spell that caused him to feel the cold and despair. Only on reflection, apparently, does he realize that Harry saved his "life." Carol, who thinks that Petunia's acknowledgement that Dementors were real must have caused Dudley to realize that Harry was telling the truth From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 18:51:07 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:51:07 -0000 Subject: Some Draco and wish fulfillment WAS: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177226 Amy: And I realize that it's weird to everyone that > Draco just keeps coming back. Maybe it is JKR's set-up to make us > cheer for the good guys (although I don't like the implication I have > to be manipulated into what to cheer for, and when; it's not like > there's an Imperius curse on the books, readers can choose for > themselves what they like about the heroes and what they don't.). If > it is, though, a lot more goes into it than just making sure Draco is > there at the right moment to be beaten up; because even a six-year- > old wouldn't cheer for Draco et al being beaten up if Draco > hadn't...for lack of better words, been getting on everyone's nerves > and going unchecked for it for a fairly long time (read: almost the > entire book). *That* is something that some readers CAN relate to, > which, I assume, is why there are so many people cheering in the > first place. > > It's not just that Draco starts the particular confrontations in > which he gets beaten up; if it were, it'd be impossible to see why > Draco would keep coming back. But most of the time, Draco *does* make > fun of the Trio with little-to-no retaliation before they actually > strike, which is what I think most of the cheering squad responds to. > I'd say the amount of times Draco verbally goes after the Trio, and > the number of times they retaliate physically, is about a 3:1 ratio. > You can't see why Draco would keep coming back for that? They're not > the best odds in the world, and yes, it still seems like wish > fulfilment, but there are realistic aspects there, too. > Alla: I soooo agree with everything you said and with everything I snipped too, but let me elaborate a little bit on Draco coming back as well. I mean, Draco can be coming back for all the reasons you mentioned, but also um, it is not like it pulls me out of the story. I find nothing problematic with the bad guy who could not get what he wanted from his victims ( or potential victims) to try to do it over and over again. What is so strange about that? And now I want to ramble off about wish fulfillment and it is not really a question to you, but more to list members who seem to write it off as a bad thing, or it seems to me. Was Nyta the last one who mentioned it? So it is the question to her and anybody else, really. I mean, isn't every writer, especially fantasy writer when she or he writes any book to some extent engages in wish fulfillment? Meaning that writer imagines the worlds that exist only in their imagination and I would assume author may want to visit such world and put that on paper. And sure, maybe author would give to one or more of the characters some qualities of real people or even some qualities of that writer. That is now bad? Isn't that irrelevant for evaluating that writer's skill as long as the story is done skillfully and the characters are good? Or if indeed the wish fulfillment in putting bad guys down, so what? I mean as long as story is done well, why should it matter that the main villain of the story suffered the horrible fate partially because that villain has some qualities of the real person or not. Does it matter what influenced author's thoughts when she was putting the story on paper? Or does it only matter as long as the characters we like suffered a horrible fate? I am absolutely seriously wondering. I keep reading the *wish fulfillment** as if it is the worst thing JKR could do. For example to go back to Snape and that teacher that she supposedly partially used as RL basis for Snape. Um, from that article that was quoted as far as I remember, he refused her mother a job when she was in a tough situation, the mother who is now dead. He only asked her mother to come work for him, when the other person could not do it. He may have been many times right that her mother was not qualified for that job, but don't you think that JKR may not have warm fuzzy feelings towards that person regardless? So, JKR starts writing Harry Potter. I mean, if she started writing Harry Potter with one purpose in mind to get back at that person, I would seriously wonder about her mental state. But something tells me that the reason JKR started to write Harry Potter had very very little to do with getting back at that teacher. I think she you know, imagined Harry as she said ( on the train or somewhere else) and just started a story because she saw the story in her mind. Time comes when she invisions Snape's character and he is you know, fills his place in the story, etc, but among other thoughts in JKR's head ( not that I can read those thoughts obviously, just speculating) there is a thought that let's make Snape just as nasty as that teacher I knew. I mean, it fits the story, no? Oh oh and of course I do not even know if JKR indeed wanted to do that, didn't she say that Lockhart is the only character based on real person, I am just saying that if she did want to portray some nastiness of that teacher in Snape, I think she did it because she fits **Snape** as a character, not because she wanted to randomly stuck the teacher in the story as Snape Sue or Teacher Sue and exercise her revenge over him. Just my opinion, Alla, rambling one. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 19:07:15 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:07:15 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? - Eileen Prince In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177227 Aussie wrote: > > Eileen Prince ! > So what was Eileen's history. I know JKR would have loved to tell > us, but that subplot may have eclipsed some Hallows story line. > > - Eileen went to school at the same time as Tom Riddle > - Eileen may have been in Slytherin with Tom > - Hermione couldn't find any other wizarding family called "Prince" - > - Was she muggle-born or from wizard lineage? Carol responds: Eileen cannot have been a Muggle-born or Severus would not have been a Half-Blood. In the view of pure-blood supremacists like the Malfoys and Voldemort, a Muggle-born is just a Muggle with unnatural magical powers. Severus would have four grandparents who were Muggles, which would make him a Muggle-born. So Eileen would have to be at least a Half-blood herself, and probably a Pure-blood, for Severus to qualify as a Half-blood. I'm not sure whether one wizarding grandparent would be enough. (Harry, Tom Riddle, and Dumbledore, whose mother was a Muggle-born, each have two Muggle and two wizarding grandparents.) More important, IMO, Teen!Severus called himself *the* Half-Blood Prince, which indicates that he was the only one (no brothers or sisters). The other Princes, including his mother, must have been pure-bloods. As for Hermione not finding any wizarding family called the Princes, I don't think that's quite true since she wasn't looking in a wizarding genealogy, she was looking in the Daily Prophet and old school records. She found one student named Eileen Prince and stopped there. The most we can conclude is that she found no record of any brothers or sisters for Eileen (no Prefects with that name, no Potions awards for any student named Prince). Later, when she knows that Snape is the Half-Blood Prince, she finds the wedding and birth announcements. We don't know whether Eileen's parents are mentioned in the wedding announcement. If they were alive, they probably were, unless Eileen was in her twenties or thirties and marrying against their wishes (which I find likely given her choice of husbands and their home in a Muggle slum). Since Severus thought that Slytherin was a House for "brains," I'm guessing that it was Eileen's old House and she described it to him in that way. (It's clear that she didn't mention the pure-blood supremacy ethic or he might not have wanted to go there, and he certainly would not have thought that Lily could be placed in Slytherin.) And, of course, if Eileen *was* in Slytherin, she could not have been a Muggle-born. (How she met Tobias is another question altogether, but not one we're likely to find an answer to.) Anyway, I'm curious to know more about young Severus's homelife and how a witch could allow herself to be bullied by a Muggle (fear of arrest for hexing a "helpless" Muggle is my guess). Apparently, she taught him about Hogwarts and Dementors and underage magic. Possibly, she taught him Potions from an early age (though Hermione didn't find her name as a recipient of any Potions awards), and possibly, she allowed him to practice magic as soon as he got his wand (would that have been his eleventh birthday?), giving him about seven months to learn more jinxes and hexes than half the seventh years before he started school (if Sirius Black can be relied on here. Certainly, they weren't Dark curses since most seventh years don't go around casting Unforgiveables and other illegal or highly dangerous curses, and the spells he invented before Sectumsempra are imaginative jinxes and hexes.) I'd like to see Severus' relationship with his mother, who must have educated him at home when her husband was at work. I can't see her sending him to a Muggle school. Unlike Harry, he seems to have acquired at least a rudimentary knowledge of Latin, as well--not a subject that's taught in most Muggle schools these days, to my knowledge (at least not state schools for children eleven and under--elementary schools, we'd call them in the U.S.) Carol, quite sure that Eileen was a Pure-Blood because, otherwise, Sevvy's nickname would make no sense From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 19:26:57 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:26:57 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177228 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Jen: > > > To get the ball rolling.....my two biggest failed > > predictions, the ones I wrote about ad nauseum, O > > H-so-certain I was on the right track *sniff sniff*: > > > > My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken > > straight from the Prediction contest (throw out > > that first line ): > > > > > bboyminn: OK, I'll Play. Let's test my memory now and see if I can remember my predictions. Some things I got right, more things I got wrong, and a few things I /sort of/ got right. Horcrux vs Hallows - This is in the /sort of/ right category. My 'Objects of Power' theory said that the Hallows were related magical objects that when brought together would be immensely powerful. The combination being greater than the sum of their parts. The story bore that aspect out. Unfortunately, part of that theory was to predict that in the end the Horcruxes wouldn't matter. The combined power of the Hallows would override them. I predicted a high likelihood that in the confrontation between Harry and Voldemort not all the Horcruxes would be destroyed. On that, I was partly right. However, by extention, part of my prediction was that Harry would have united the Hallows and their power would render the Horcruxes pointless. Fell a bit short there. Harry a Horcrux - I was sure this was wrong. However in a discussion I did say that /if/ it was true, then /this/ is how it would have happened. Someone has already quoted that post showing how dead on I was. Snape's Death - I was sure Snape would die a tragic death, so on that count I was right. Unfortunately, I predicted it would be a far more Heroic death than it actually was. Perhaps helping Harry escape from Voldemort or perhaps trying to intervene in the final duel. Percy Redeemed - I always knew Percy was a good guy, just slightly misguided. I also whole heartedly agree with my own previous statements and with recent posts that indicate that there was blame on both sides in Percy's estrangement. I suspected there was a good chance he would die proving his loyalty to his family, to Dumbledore, and to Harry. Well, he didn't die, but he did return to his family by the end. I'm glad it was Fred who first embraced Percy's return. I though that was very fitting. Draco Redeemed - I was absolutely dead against the idea that if Draco turned good he and Harry would be BFF (best friends forever). That, in my opinion, was a completely misguided idea. But I did predict a greater degree of redemption for Draco. I thought his choice would be more positive and more clear, though I assured everyone that Draco would always be Draco; obnoxious. I was disappointed that the Draco thread was left so ambiguous. Snape, Draco, & Harry - As part of Draco's redemption, I did predict that somehow Snape would have to contact Harry in a way that would make Harry trust Snape again, and that they would use that renewed trust to bring Draco out of the Death Eaters and under Harry's control. I picture them all at Grimmauld Place were Mrs. Black was oddly civil to Draco, but stark raving mad with everyone else. At the Black home, the Trio would be trying to work out plans while trying at the same time to keep Draco out of it. Slytherin Redemption - I predicted that Slytherin would always be Slytherin. In my view Slytherins created their problems, it's up to Slytherins to fix it. I also predicted that our vision of Slytherin was warped because we don't actually get to see MOST Slytherins. We get to see a small but unpleasant subset of Slytherins. Still, much like Draco, I expected a greater degree of redemption for Slytherin House. I expected to see a few students who approach Harry and assure him that not all Slytherins think Voldemort is such a good idea. Of course, their motivations would have been selfish. Voldemort was bad for business, and what is bad for business is bad for Slytherins. But still better greedy wolves than blind sheep. Ron & Hermione at the Dursleys- I was absolutely sure we would get to see Ron and Hermione spend some time at the Dursley. That would have been soooo funny. JKR dropped a hint that this would happened but sadly it never did. Harry & Petunia, plus Dumbledore's Letter - As part of Ron and Hermione staying at the Dursley's I was sure that after much frustration, Petunia and Harry would have a heart-to-heart and Petunia would show, or give, Harry Dumbledore's letter. The extension of seeing the letter would be the opportunity to reveal certain aspects of the backstory. I also predicted that Petunia would have other artifacts that belonged to Lily that she would show and/or give Harry. School - I predicted that the Trio would NOT go back to the school as students. But I did predict that they would go back for other reasons. The Veil - This is probably my most far out and WRONG prediction. I was sure that an object as strong and as bold as The Veil could not be ignored. I did predict Harry would die something of a technical death, but not at true and complete death. But, I picture this all happening around the Veil, though I couldn't imagine how we would bring all the characters to that location again. I predicted Harry through the Veil and back, and somehow, that would contribute to the demise of Voldemort, and (wishful thinking) the return of Sirius Black. I actually has several 'techincal death' prediction, but what actually happened, though similar, was so completely different, I won't try to claim credit for this one. The Trivials and Triumphs of Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 19:34:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:34:11 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177229 Bart wrote: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" > > To give my example: > > Snape being friends with Lily BEFORE Hogwarts. It certainly made a lot of sense in 20/20 hindsight, but I did not see that one coming at all. Carol responds: I didn't buy into the Snape/Lily SHIP at all, thinking that Snape's motivations were more complex. Another major event I didn't see coming was Snape as headmaster (and the whole DE takeover of the MoM). I thought that Snape, not Harry, would be Undesirable Number One. Carol, who did believe that Nagini was a Horcrux and that "Severus, please" meant, "Severus, please kill me," and, erm, well, didn't get much else right except Harry's self-sacrifice and survival From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 19:56:09 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:56:09 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177230 > Bart: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" > > To give my example: > > Snape being friends with Lily BEFORE Hogwarts. It certainly made a lot of sense in 20/20 hindsight, but I did not see that one coming at all. Alla: Hmmm, this is very hard to answer, actually. I mean, certainly I did not see how many of the events will play out plot wise, but I saw the things itself to come true, if that makes sense. Like what you just said about Lily and Snape being friends before Hogwarts, as I said I saw LOLLIPOPS after HBP, absolutely did, and whether they were being friends before Hogwarts or not was just one of the possibilities, which I did not think much of, you know? You specifically want to name those events that were shock for us, right? It is hard indeed, I mean even my biggest failed prediction about Snape's loyalties was not shock for me. As I mentioned before, not because I expected it or predicted it, but because we talked about it so often, and I still was keeping it in my mind that even if I do not want or expect it, it may come true. Does that make sense? I guess I should blame you guys for not many things that shocked me at the end :), seems like we discussed every possibility, and the surprises that just seemed minor points in the developments of the theories. Even if I did not see them, somebody did, and I remembered it. Hmmm, how about we settled for what surprised me? Elder wand business did surprise me, yes. Lupin dying actually surprised me, it did. Not because his death I just did not see, but because after HBP I just thought that the reason JKR gave him a girlfriend was to give him something to hold on to life - since all his friends are dead, etc. After OOP I would have totally expected him to die, but not after HBP. Who knew that JKR did that specifically because she wanted to kill the parents. Oh, oh Hagrid NOT dying surprised me as well. I was sure he was toasted. What else? Oh, oh, I guess the fact that meaning of "Severus, please" did surprised me, but in a bit different way that I expected to be. I mean, again we talked about it, but this was something that even if Snape turns out to be good, I really really did not expect to be the part of it AND I thought that if this will be true, I would hate Dumbledore for it. So it did come true. Funnily, I really do not hate Dumbledore for it. Dumbledore's past was a nice revelation story wise. But I do not know if I was surprised, since I thought it was soo cool. Just something new that I learned about Dumbledore. Alla. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 20:29:29 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:29:29 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177231 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see > THAT one coming!" Like everyone else, I didn't expect the whole Hallows business, but it's probably not what you meant, because we can't consider Hallows an "event". I must say that the most surprising (and not in a good way :-) thing in the book was for me the fall of the Ministry. I have no idea why, but I didn't expect it at all, didn't even consider the possibility. It made everything more scary and more dangerous. I was also really shocked when Ron left Harry and Hermione. I was expecting him to come back after a couple of hours, and when he didn't, I can't tell you how depressed I was ;-(. I was scarier for me than many other things in the book. As for Harry!Horcrux - I always believed in it, but by the middle of the book I kind of lost faith, because it was never mentioned, and there was nothing in the book to suggest that our Harrycrux theory was correct :-). So when it came true, I was a little surprised (pleasantly this time :-). zanooda From poohtwo2000 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 19:16:06 2007 From: poohtwo2000 at yahoo.com (poohtwo2000) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:16:06 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177232 > Bart: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" > > To give my example: > > Snape being friends with Lily BEFORE Hogwarts. It certainly made a > lot of sense in 20/20 hindsight, but I did not see that one coming at > all. poohtwo: I think we can all agree that we knew Neville would be important to the story, but how many of us could imagine him leading the underground movement at Hogwarts in Harry's absence. I certainly didn't see it. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 20:53:32 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:53:32 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177233 Amy wrote: > > Well, I agree that Draco is definitely not in the superior position during his confrontations with Harry. But taking on the Man? Really? Carol responds: It occurred to me as I was reading this post that Draco *really* takes on "the Man" in HBP when, through a chain of circumstances that are only partially his fault (but mostly his father's and Voldemort's), he finds himself trying to kill Dumbledore. It's a dark parallel to Harry taking on Voldemort, unqualified boy against a much older and much more powerful wizard in both cases. I don't think that Harry ever sees the parallel, but I think that the reader is supposed to. (Of course, Draco is in no danger from Dumbledore, but he doesn't know that. Ironically, his danger, like Harry's comes from Voldemort. Ironically, too, he actually does have both the means and opportunity to kill Dumbledore but, like Harry with LV but for different reasons, doesn't cast a Killing Curse.) Draco, like Harry, has a tendency to get himself into situations that escalate beyond his control, but, unlike Harry, it's usually his own fault that he got involved in the first place. Elsewhere in this thread, someone asked what compels Draco to act as he does (other than JKR's plot needs). IOW, considering Draco as a character who exists in the pages of the books independent of JKR's intentions (which may or may not have been realized) or her view of him (which may or may not be shared by any given reader), what makes him act as he does? It seems to me that Draco, unlike Theo Nott (a fellow Slytherin in a similar position), cares what people think. He wants to be a leader. He likes attention and wants to be admired, if only by his fellow Slytherins. He seems to be jealous of Harry, who receives attention from the whole WW without seeking it and, at first, without having done anything more than survive an AK through no skill or power or effort of his own. Draco resents Harry's choice of friends (a "Mudblood" and a "blood-traitor") and his rejection of Draco's mentorship ("I can help you there," meaning I can help you make connections with the "right" people--Draco at eleven seems to be a budding Slughorn except that he fails to influence or impress Harry). Draco may be indulged by his mother, but he's a bit afraid of his father, whom he tries to emulate and whose influence he brags about (until Lucius's arrest). Lucius is, of course, quite willing to indulge his son when it suits his own ends, whether it's buying brooms for the Slytherin team so that they can (in theory) beat Gryffindor or trying to get Hagrid fired. But Draco has bought his parents' philosophy hook, line, and sinker: Pure-bloods are superior, money and influence can get you whatever you want, the end justifies the means. Having no experience with fear or death, he naively hopes that "Granger" will be killed by the Heir of Slytherin (as Harry in HBP rather less naively hopes that the DADA "jinx" will kill Snape). At the end of GoF, he sees his beliefs as validated by Voldemort's return: he and his parents are "on the winning side." With Lucius's arrest at the end of OoP, Draco's perspective shifts. He blames Harry and he wants revenge (making him easy prey for Voldemort). He suspects Snape of usurping his father's place and wanting to "steal his glory." Yet he still, at the beginning of HBP, believes in the Dark Lord's cause, and he has confidence in his own ability to fill his father's shoes. Not only can he repair that cabinet and let the DEs in, he can become LV's most honored follower by killing Dumbledore despite being sixteen years old and still a schoolboy. Death threats and repeated failure and Sectumsempra change all that. He can't kill Dumbledore, he hates being a Death Eater, and he's no longer Harry's implacable enemy. He's not a hero, but he's not his father's clone, either (any more than Harry is James's clone, despite the physical resemblance in both cases). So what motivates Draco to continually oppose or confront Harry and his friends? I think it's a combination of jealousy, resentment, interhouse rivalry, belief in the "principles" he's learned from his parents, overconfidence in his own abilities and (in the early books) his father's influence. The Dark Lord's resurrection makes him certain that he's on the winning side. His father's arrest gives him the desire for revenge (and, having triumphed over Harry in the Hogwarts Express, he thinks he can move on to bigger enemies). I think that confrontation, mostly through taunts but occasionally through actions such as stealing Neville's Remembrall or threatening to get Hagrid fired, is a compulsion for Draco, a form of attention-seeking that he simply can't resist, any more than Hermione can resist raising her hand and giving the right answer to a question. While the pre-HBP Draco holds Hermione and Ron in contempt, one for her "blood" and the other for his and his family's philosophy, I think his opposition to Harry is more of an attempt at conversion or a desire to prove to Harry that he's right and Harry is wrong. Harry had a chance to be part of Draco's gang and turned it down to be with "riffraff," a chance to be on the winning side and turned it down to follow a foolish old Muggle-lover who actually trusts Severus Snape, the "stupid old man." Anyway, I don't think it's masochism that keeps Draco coming back for more. I think it's a perverse sense of the rightness of his cause, at least in the sense of "might makes right," the right side being the winning side, the side in power. But he also resents Harry for receiving so much attention, and if he can't eliminate that attention, he can at least make sure that it's directed against Harry ("Support Cedric Diggory") or against his friends ("Weasley I Our King"). Carol, trying to see Draco whole, without the Harry filter, and not sure that she's succeeded From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 20:40:15 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 20:40:15 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177234 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KathyK" wrote: > > KathyK: > > I didn't enter the contest but I did make some random predictions way > back when. Gary: The contest was also well before my time. However I would like everyone to howl at my out-of-box prediction that of course did not come close to being true -- - Neville kills LV when the opportunity arises in the final scene after Harry fails to do so (and after all of the Horcluxes are eliminated somehow). Both were covered by the prophecy. By chance LV's target before Neville when they were babies, Harry originally lived because of his mother's great skill and sacrifice. Being a living Horclux as a by-product of the encounter, HP had his link to LV (and the scar to prove that "he had lived".) Seeing an opportunity to further confuse our not very bright chief villian, HP had been the decoy set up by Dumbledore from the beginning. None of heroism in the prior six books was false. On the other hand, Neville had been secretly trained, provided with the necessary information which could not be shared with the "decoy" for security reasons, and his apparent foolishness was part of the deception. IF Harry somehow succeeded, great. If not, Neville was ready. Hey, in my defense, it makes HP's apparently out of loop status on information throughout the series make more sense. Why otherwise treat the one, great hope for the future in the fashion that Harry was treated? (Dumbledore's apology to Harry in DH, AmEd, page 720 is very weak.) OK, laugh now. Very loudly. I had two more alternative endings that I will spare everyone unless requested. Better predictions -- - Harry was the last Horclux. Somehow he had to die and yet live. (Thought it was going to be due to the blood connection -- why Dumbledore smiled at the end of GoF.) - Harry, Hermione and Ron live. Easy one, Warner Bros. has two more movies at over $250M a pop to produce and sell. - One of Weasley twins dies. OK, I did not select a specific one. Hopes that failed to appear in print - - As further bad news for the Weasley family before either Fred's or George's death (see above), Ginny and Ron each would die in sacrifices so Harry and Hermione would live and continue on the quest. Just think about it -- why was it so hard for LV to catch Harry if he really thought about it? Just kidnap the available good friends, even at Hogwarts, and demand Harry show up to redeem them or else. Of course, it turns out that the trio was wandering about with no plan and no communications links to the world for months, so it may have looked like the ending of Sparticus before Harry realized what was going on ... LV did suffer mightly from inept help - the ghoul-Ron to disguise Ron's activities should not have worked for more than two minutes. Why would they care if Ron was "sick"? Do you think that Harry's breakup at the end of HBP with Ginny would have confused anyone about their real relationship? Again, would they have cared? From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 21:09:04 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:09:04 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177235 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Draco isn't the big man on campus. Harry is. And that's who > > Draco is continually throwing himself against. > >>Alla: > I am going to make clarification of the sort. I reread my post and > I do not want to be accused of misrepresenting your opinion even a > little, so I will rephrase a little bit. Betsy Hp: Well... Okay. But just this once. > >>Alla: > If Draco is not a Big man on campus, but Harry is and Draco is > continuasly throwing himself against Big Man on Campus it is much > easier to justify Draco's behavior. > > I realised that you did not call him poor dear, although I phrased > it that way not because I wanted to built a straw man, but because > the implication screamed to me from your post. Sorry about that > part. Betsy Hp: You're right, it's got nothing to do with Draco being a "poor dear." Because he's not. He's bats**t crazy, and quite the little scrapper, but he's not a "poor dear." Which is why I like him. I've not got much time for "poor dears". They bore me. Oh sure, the puppy dog eyes work for a time, but after awhile I get annoyed and want them to get off their duffs and *do* something. Draco, say what you like about him, is a doer. What I object to (and was objecting to) was this idea that Draco was attacking from a power position; that he's a bully. Draco does not behave like a bully. He continually goes after a boy his age, his build and with bigger goons and more staff support. A boy who *always* beats him. And Draco *keeps on going*. I like that. But I also wasn't saying Draco's behavior was *justifiable*. Just that Harry and Co.'s responses where over the top. A lot. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177203 > >>Carol responds: > Can you please point out a single reference in canon to Harry (or > James, who looks just like him) as "handsome"? Betsy Hp: God no. Harry's not going to sit around thinking about his own dreaminess. But everytime there's a date-able event, Harry's having to run away from the womens. And James was popular with the ladies too. Ergo, they're both handsome devils. (I'm not talking GQ spread, just athletic with non-freakish features, which is about all it takes.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > (Hermione is the same way, I think: smart, beautiful, admired and > > courted by all who see her. > >>Carol responds: > She seems to be regarded as pretty when she's dressed up for the > Yule Ball or Bill and Fleur's wedding, but otherwise she's just > Harry's bushy-haired friend, who, until Draco's Densuageo spell is > deflected onto her and she gets her teeth shrunk by Madam Pomfrey, > also has over-large, protruding teeth. "Beautiful" compared > with "pug-faced" Pansy Parkinson, maybe, but Parvati Patil's > surprise that she looks pretty at the Yule Ball suggests that she > normally looks rather plain. Smart, yes, but "courted by all"? > Betsy Hp: Yes. JKR's one of those bizzaro "feminists" who think that calling a girl or woman pretty is condemning her to bad things (apparently). So again, we're not going to get canon of people not bad guys calling Hermione pretty all that often. But her first ever date is with an international, much sought after sports star. She's in a position for the next big date-able event to pick and choose her date. And she gets whistled at in the street. (Which generally just takes a pulse, but this is "anvil-Jo" we're talking about here, so I'm going with what she's telling me: Hermione's a hotty.) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177221 > >>Betsy Hp: > > So yeah, when Draco gets into the Trio's face, he's not doing it > > from a superior position. He's totally taking on the Man. He > > might be wrongheaded and crazy to do so, but there's still > > something there to admire. At least for me. (I wasn't the Man in > > highschool, myself.) > Amy: > Well, I agree that Draco is definitely not in the superior position > during his confrontations with Harry. But taking on the Man? Really? > Betsy Hp: Goodness yes! Cheered at his Sorting, youngest ever Seeker, "the hero who conquered the Dark Lord," chased by older girls for his first ever school dance, stalked by younger girls when he's an upperclassman, close to the elusive headmaster, beloved darling of most of the staff... How is Harry *not* a BMOC? > >>Amy: > Throughout the HP books, Harry's average hangout group consists of > Ron and Hermione ( and Fred and George on frequent enough occasion > to be mentioned). Betsy Hp: Exclusive inner circle. This doesn't make a good case for average, overlooked Harry, I'm afraid. > >>Amy: > It's been mentioned on this list before that Harry barely knows the > names of the students in his year, let alone in the rest of the > school. Betsy Hp: He doesn't need to. They know *him*. > >>Amy: > *Hermione* is able to convince a group of students to join a > Defence group led by him in order to pass their DADA OWLs. Betsy Hp: By evoking Harry's name. As became clear at their very first meeting, which pissed Harry off, but was still the case. > >>Amy: > Could he convince half the school body to join in a smear campaign > against one student? I don't know, I have yet to see evidence of it. > Betsy Hp: Harry did one better. His popularity lead to large group of students *literally* smearing three other students. (The OotP train stomp.) So yeah, I'm still rather convinced that when it comes down to student popularity, Harry has it over Draco. Betsy Hp From bowie_alicat at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 21:09:20 2007 From: bowie_alicat at yahoo.com (bowie_alicat) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:09:20 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177236 > Bart: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" boy that is a tough one, since I think I gasped, moaned or said NO WAY out loud about every 20 pages or so! I think the events that shocked me the most was the return of Percy and the death of Fred; I sort of thought Percy might wise up but could not figure out how it would happen, and then I figured once back in the bosom of his family, he would be the Weasley to go. I was shocked by Fred's death since George had been injured; I didn't think JKR would have another go at such popular characters after the ear loss. I was also was very resistant to the Harry as a Horcrux theory, so I had to listen to my daughter crow about that after she read the book (text messages, etc). I also fell hard for the idea that Auntie Muriel's tiara was actually a Horcrux - goblin made and all that - so sleuthing is not my strong point! alison From bowie_alicat at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 21:19:59 2007 From: bowie_alicat at yahoo.com (bowie_alicat) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:19:59 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177237 I would be hoping to find more information about: - James Potter and his family - he really gets the 'no information' shaft - Petunia's - she's so horrid to Harry, it just amazes me and it makes me wonder - Hermione's parents and how they reacted to the news that she was a witch; did she have magic bursting out of her as the other magic children? - MORE EPILOGUE!!!! alison From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 19 23:43:13 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:43:13 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....More Predictions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177238 More Predictions - As someone reminded me I DID predict The Battle of Hogwarts as well as the Battle of Privet Drive. Though I must admit the context of my predictions was a little off. I thought the attack on Privet Drive would be the impetus for the Dursleys to seek Harry's protection, and the only place Harry could protect them would be to move them into The Black House. OUCH! I was off on that one. I did predict the Battle of Hogwarts, but I wasn't sure it would be connected to the final confrontation. Again, /sort of/ right. I did predict that by holding the school Voldemort essentially held the wizard world hostage, and to a much smaller degree than I predicted, I was /sort of/ right about that too. As long as we are at it, I also predicted that the Wedding would be attacked. Though again, the context was a bit off. I picture an all out battle between Voldemort's henchmen and the good guys, as it was it was more a harrassment raid by the infiltrated Ministry. Still, I was close. I guess the thing is, if you predict enough things, sooner or later some of them are bound to be close. I'm sure I probably made more predictions, but they escape my feeble mind at the moment. Steve/bboyminn From gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 00:00:19 2007 From: gypsy.swpa at yahoo.com (gypsy.swpa) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:00:19 -0000 Subject: What's in the Box? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177239 > Alison wrote: > I would be hoping to find more information about: > - James Potter and his family - he really gets the 'no information' > shaft > - Petunia's - she's so horrid to Harry, it just amazes me and it > makes me wonder > - Hermione's parents and how they reacted to the news that she was > a witch; did she have magic bursting out of her as the other magic > children? > - MORE EPILOGUE!!!! gypsy.swpa: I have to agree. I am probably the only person in the world that was disappointed with the final book. Except for chapters dealing with Snape and Harry facing Voldemort, this was my least favorite of the series. From yvaine28 at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 00:30:35 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:30:35 +0800 Subject: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330709191730l9102442m8f2c1244b403a98d@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177240 On 9/20/07, Hagrid wrote: > aussie: > Did James' parents go to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle? > How likely is that? Meann: Tom Riddle was born 31 Dec.1926 based on the usual formula used to calculate most years in the HP world - Nick's deathday. If that's accurate, he was at Hogwarts in 1938. Lily, James, and their contemporaries, were born around 1960, give or take a year, so they would've entered Hogwarts in 1971. That's a 33-year difference. =) Tom's contemporaries at Hogwarts were Hagrid, Moaning Myrtle, Prof. McGonagall, and the future Death Eaters Avery and Rodolphus Lestrange. Hope that helps. =) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 00:59:49 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 00:59:49 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177241 > > >>Carol responds: > > Can you please point out a single reference in canon to Harry (or James, who looks just like him) as "handsome"? > > Betsy Hp: > God no. Harry's not going to sit around thinking about his own dreaminess. But everytime there's a date-able event, Harry's having to run away from the womens. And James was popular with the ladies too. Ergo, they're both handsome devils. (I'm not talking GQ spread, just athletic with non-freakish features, which is about all it takes.) > Carol again: But Harry is not the narrator, who is just a voice usually reflecting Harry's point of view. Our descriptions of Harry are among the few things that do not reflect his perception because the narrator steps outside Harry's pov to provide them, sometimes when he's asleep. Here's a charming one: "Harry Potter was snoring loudly. He . . . had fallen asleep with one side of his face pressed against the cold windowpane, his glasses askew and his mouth wide open. . . . [T]he artificial light drained his face of all color, so that he looked ghostly beneath the shock of untidy black hair" (OoP am. ed. 38). Not a flattering description, but a surprisingly honest one. Or how about "[Harry] peered into the mirror on the inside of the door. A skinny boy of fourteen looked back at him, his bright green eyes puzzled under his untidy black hair" (16). No indication of handsomeness here, either. He's clearly a very ordinary-looking kid with rather unusual eyes. The emphasis is on the traits that link him to his mother and father respectively. But his skinny build resembles that of Severus Snape at the same age; he, too, was small for his age and skinny and black-haired. (I don't think that's coincidental.) The key feature is, of course, the "scar shaped like a bolt of lightning" mentioned earlier on the same page--not likely to make Harry handsomer than he would have been without it, but certainly likely to draw the eyes of anyone who sees it, at least anyone familiar with Harry Potter's story, which is pretty much everyone in the WW. "Handsome" is used for specific characters: Cedric, Tom, and Sirius in particular. It is never used by the narrator to refer to James or Harry. Nor does *any* character *ever* refer to James or Harry as handsome, including those who liked and admired James or the two girls who have crushes on Harry, Cho and Ginny. ("His eyes are as green as a pickled toad." Charming, Ginny.) *Was* James "popular with the ladies"? We see a girl making goo-goo eyes at handsome, arrogant *Sirius* and being ignored by him in SWM. We see Lily, who does seem to be flirting with James while also calling him a "toerag," but there's no indication that she thinks he's handsome, either in that scene or "The Prince's Tale." He may (or may not) have a charismatic personality (I see no evidence of it in SWM). My reading is that the Gryffindors admire his Quidditch skills, which would make him popular in his own House, and anyone else who laughs at his bullying either dislikes Severus or fears being hexed by James in the corridors for annoying him. At any rate, we don't see a group of girls following him around the way they follow Cedric, Viktor, and Harry during his cycles of popularity (in GoF and HBP). James's biggest fans are his best friend, the werewolf who wants them to like him, and the sycophantic tagalong who drools over his reflexes. No girls except Lily even enter the picture, and he's the one with the crush on her, not vice versa (yet). Again, the girls follow duck-footed, hook-nosed Viktor Krum around, not because he's handsome (he isn't) but because he's a famous athlete. And it's made clear in GoF that Harry would be no more successful in getting a date for the Yule Ball than Ron (who has to be fixed up with Parvati's sister as a last resort, Hermione being already taken) if it weren't for the TWT: "Harry doubted very much if any of the girls who had asked to be his partner so far would have wanted to go to the ball with him if he had't been a school champion" (GoF Am. ed. 389). Harry is not introspective, but he does know that his popularity with the girls is a very recent phenomenon, and its cause is not difficult to discover. Granted, Cho likes him even in PoA, but that's probably because he's an excellent Seeker and she's a Seeker herself, and Ginny has worshipped "the boy who defeated the Dark Lord" since she was ten, but she's an exception to the general rule. People point at Harry because he's the Boy who Lived or the Chosen One or that crazy kid who thinks You-Know-Who is back, but no one is swooning over Harry's *looks* the way they swoon over, say, Gilderoy Lockhart. "Athletic with non-freakish features" I'll accept. But "handsome devils" for Harry and his lookalike father is an exaggeration, not justified by the text. Harry is pale, skinny, short, bespectacled, with hair that sticks up in the back. No one in the books likes him because of his looks (in marked contrast to Cedric and Sirius). Either they like him because he's a Quidditch champion or they want to be his date because he's a TWT champion (after the First Task--before that, they're suggesting that he put his own name in the Goblet and is lying about it) or because he fought Voldemort and survived (HBP). Romilds Vane and her friends don't like Harry either for his looks or as a person; they just want to make the other girls jealous because they've been chosen by the Chosen One. I agree that JKR makes Harry a great athlete who never loses a game unless he's injured. She can't bring herself to let him lose any more than she can bring herself to kill Mr. Weasley. But Harry *isn't* handsome. His ordinariness is supposed to be part of his appeal. The skinny kid with glasses isn't the nerd this time. He's the hero. And at the same time, he's Everykid. Carol, who was also a skinny kid with glasses but, unlike Harry, was chosen last for any team sport because she was notoriously "afraid of the ball" :-( From starview316 at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 20 01:01:13 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:01:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177242 > > Amy: > > Well, I agree that Draco is definitely not in the superior position > > during his confrontations with Harry. But taking on the Man? Really? > > > > Betsy Hp: > Goodness yes! Cheered at his Sorting, youngest ever Seeker, "the > hero who conquered the Dark Lord," chased by older girls for his > first ever school dance, stalked by younger girls when he's an > upperclassman, close to the elusive headmaster, beloved darling of > most of the staff... How is Harry *not* a BMOC? Amy: I think you may be assuming that the average Hogwarts resident thinks about Harry Potter a lot more often than they really do. Every new student was cheered at their Sorting, Harry was asked by a total of two girls to go to the Ball (one younger and one older, and actually, this is the exact number of people who asked Hermione to the dance, too), and I think this is the first time I've ever heard Harry called the "darling" of most of the staff...most of the staff that he hardly knows exist, I might point out. Where in canon are we supposed to get the indication that any teacher other than Dumbledore, McGonagall, Hagrid, and possibly Trelawney, have every given him more than a passing thought (when he's not drawing attention to himself?)? > > >>Amy: > > Throughout the HP books, Harry's average hangout group consists of > > Ron and Hermione ( and Fred and George on frequent enough occasion > > to be mentioned). > Betsy Hp: > Exclusive inner circle. This doesn't make a good case for average, > overlooked Harry, I'm afraid. Amy: Yes, but I wasn't trying to make a case for average, overlooked Harry. I think there's a difference between people knowing of you (and possibly not thinking badly of you), and liking you well enough to call yourself popular. To have an exclusive inner circle, you have to have enough people actually *wanting* to be part of that circle to make it "exclusive". If Harry's celebrity status had counted the way you seem to think it does (basically, if "the hero who conquered the Dark Lord" counted for anything), there'd be cases of people falling all over themselves to try and be friends with Harry. There aren't. Though I agree that this divide was crossed in HBP, but then again, this was the book in which Draco wasn't taking on Harry. > > >>Amy: > > It's been mentioned on this list before that Harry barely knows the > > names of the students in his year, let alone in the rest of the > > school. > > Betsy Hp: > He doesn't need to. They know *him*. > Amy: They know *of* him. And again, I really think you're assuming the average student thinks about Harry Potter a lot more than they usually do. I can know of the girl sitting two desks down from me, I could say I like her well enough even though I rarely talk to her, or think about her outside of class. Every other student in the class could do the same, that doesn't mean they'd like her well enough to choose her as Prom Queen, or whatever. > > >>Amy: > > *Hermione* is able to convince a group of students to join a > > Defence group led by him in order to pass their DADA OWLs. > > Betsy Hp: > By evoking Harry's name. As became clear at their very first > meeting, which pissed Harry off, but was still the case. My point was that there was maybe 30 students, tops, in that group, and the majority of them were there to pass their OWL/NEWT exams; not because Harry or his name had any particular pull beyond his supposedly extensive knowledge of DADA hexes (and of course, because they wanted to find out whether or not he was actually crazy, since he's just that popular!). I thought it was obvious from the lack of interest in the D.A. in HBP, that few people were there out of any reason beyond passing their OWLS/NEWTs. Note that I'm still not saying that Harry is overlooked, I just think that the students of Hogwarts really don't think about him that often. > > >>Amy: > > Could he convince half the school body to join in a smear campaign > > against one student? I don't know, I have yet to see evidence of it. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Harry did one better. His popularity lead to large group of students > *literally* smearing three other students. (The OotP train stomp.) Amy: I'm sorry, maybe it's a difference of opinions, but I can't count a group of six students as a "large" one that somehow surpasses the combined Households of Slytherin and Hufflepuff, regardless of what they were doing. >Betsy Hp > So yeah, I'm still rather convinced that when it comes down to > student popularity, Harry has it over Draco. Amy: I'm not sure whether or not I agree, because the student population of Hogwarts (just like the population of the Wizarding World, I might point out), is unusually fickle -- they don't tend to stick to one side, if you get what I mean. There are definitely times when the student body cheers Harry over Draco (some Quidditch games, when they win the House Cup -- then again, I don't know if this is Harry vs. Draco so much as Gryffindor vs. Slytherin). And they did all laugh when Ferret!Draco was bounced by Moody. But I should also point out that we've actually seen large groups of students laughing at Harry due to something Draco's done, far more often than we've seen the reverse, regardless of who these students actually are, or how much physical violence was involved. From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 20 01:22:11 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:22:11 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177243 > Betsy Hp: > Draco, say what you like about him, is a doer. What I object to (and > was objecting to) was this idea that Draco was attacking from a power > position; that he's a bully. Draco does not behave like a bully.He > continually goes after a boy his age, his build and with bigger goons > and more staff support. Pippin: In fact, much of the Draco/Harry interaction takes place in potions class, where Draco has the staff support and bigger goons. When Harry retaliates it is generally after months or weeks of having to take it. Not that it makes Harry's violence okay in a real world sense, but this isn't the real world, it's a place where everyone goes armed from the age of eleven upwards. Whether you look at that as wish fulfillment or a thought experiment depends. At any rate, Draco is a person who doesn't seem to be aware of Heinlein's aphorism: An armed society is a polite society. Draco before Hogwarts would have been surrounded by people who deferred to the Malfoys and their sneering treatment the way Borgin does. Draco doesn't expect to be called to account for his words. Draco is always getting himself into situations where he'll lose face if he doesn't up the ante, and since, like all the prominent Slytherins, he really is not a coward, he'd rather get thumped than back down. He panics only when he's faced by something unprecedented: the bloodsucking entity in the forest, Hermione's attack in PoA (up to that point she's always been the one trying to stop the fighting) or Harry's seemingly disembodied head. Pippin From 12newmoons at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 01:16:48 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (Laura Horowitz) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:16:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: <9A252789-1899-4E39-9B86-4D87AF695CCB@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177244 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: In the face of what he perceives as danger, he [Vernon] can't > seem to make his mind up what to do. He has the certainty to > act, but can't seem to reason beyond that to decide what would > be the BEST kind of action. Kneazlecat (more useful than Laura in this post!): I was going somewhere else with my question, but you're absolutely right. Vernon is the head of a big business, so you'd think he would be able to make decisions, but when it comes to Harry, he flails around like the floor has just give way under him. Maybe it's because dealing with Harry is fundamentally Petunia's prerogative. Laura wrote: > Like Snape, when Petunia looks at Harry, she sees Lily's eyes and > James' hair and body type. I think this reminds her continually of > what magic stole from her - a younger sister who looked up to her > and loved her. Magic, Snape, and James stole Lily from her. And, > in some ways, they also took her importance to the family away. > As a first born, she assumed she had a special place, then along > came Lily, who not only had a special talent, it was a talent their > parents appreciated. She was permanently deposed. Kneazlecat: Are you, by any chance, an oldest child? *grin* Again, you make a pont I hadn't thought of. The surface reading is that Petunia is simply jealous of Lily, but yes, the departure of Lily into the magical world would have had a powerful effect on the Evans family. Whereas the Grangers seemed to take it in stride (but Hermiione had no sibs to wory about), the Evanses perhaps didn't handle things as equitably as they could have. It almost makes you feel sorry for Petunia. Almost. Laura wrote: > Perhaps there is some unfinished business between them [Harry and Petunia], butPetunia has long since squandered the opportunities to develop a relationship with Harry. And, like Voldemort, I think she is too full of resentment to go beyond that. And Harry, who doesn't yet understand why she resents him, has given up on her, so he can't reach out either. Kneazlecat: I'm not so sure. Petunia is the only living person who knew Lily all of her life, so Harry may indeed want to contact her so he can learn more about his mother. I don't see him having any problem doing that, and I bet Petunia would be relieved to talk to someone about Lily who would understand the whole magic/Muggle problem. She just might want to meet Harry without Vernon knowing about it. Laura wrote: > Dudley is a bully. A bully fears losing. I think Dudley's worst > memories would have been of a time when he felt lost or > incompetent at something. In fact, his size may be a > partial response - if he is big and scary enough, then he won't be > vulnerable. Kneazlecat: Maybe the Dursleys were the type of parents who tried to protect their child by instilling fear in him-of germs, foreigners, strangers, etc. etc. etc. If so, and it seems very in character, that might account for the feeling of vulnerability underlying Dudley's bullying. Kneazlecat wrote: The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Laura wrote: JKR doesn't like too much repetition, so tries to think up something completely different each time. Kneazlecat wrote: Sure, but that's the easy answer. And I do think there's more to it than that. I'll wait and see what other answers people may give here, but I do think that Harry's emotional growth can be traced in the ways he departs from and returns to Privet Drive. Kneazlecat wrote: 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? Laura wrote: > It seems to me that Moody has taken over as leader. I think that is another reason why his death hit them so hard. They lost Dumbledore, Snape (as far as they know) is a traitor, then Moody gets killed. It means that others have to > step up to the plate, but it also means a certain loss of direction for a while each time. Kneazlecat wrote: I wonder if that's one reason why Remus proposed going along with the trio. Maybe he knew he was one of the senior members after Moody died and for whatever reasons, he didn't want the responsibility. From 12newmoons at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 01:24:05 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (Laura Horowitz) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:24:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: <20070918111518.CUB42136@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177245 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > First, thanks for the very interesting questions! > JKR makes it clear that she was always > staring out the window watching what the neighbors > were doing and that she was highly concerned with > what the neighbors and others thought of her and > her family. She wanted to be better than everyone > in the street. So Petunia would have turned her > dissapointment into its opposite, deciding that > being a witch was something shameful and > disgusting, since she herself could never be one. Laura: Thanks for your thanks! This is my first chapter discussion and it was great fun to do. I highly encourage everyone to try it! Given Petunia's general attitude, you have to think she would have made a pretty horrifying witch had she been magic as well. I can see her being a pureblood fanatic right up there with the Malfoys and the Blacks, despite the little problem of Muggle parents. "dumbledore11214" wrote: > Seems like her [Petunia's]beef was not even with James, but with Snape, so even the fact that Harry looks like James does not make me feel for her much. Laura: Now I wonder if Petunia and Snape ever had contact as teens or adults. Her perception of his influence on Lily can't have improved her opinion of the WW. Laura wrote: > > 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans > > wondered what experiences Dudley relived. > Alla: > Didn't JKR mention somewhere that he saw himself as he is in > reality, Dudley I mean? Maybe I dreamt it up. Laura: Yes, I believe she did say that in a post-release on-line chat. We have to give Dudders credit for being able to look at himself honestly and make some changes, something neither of his parents seem able to do. Thanks for great questions, Laura. Laura: Thank you! > From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 20 02:43:59 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 02:43:59 -0000 Subject: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents In-Reply-To: <5d7223330709191730l9102442m8f2c1244b403a98d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177246 > On 9/20/07, Hagrid wrote: > > Did James' parents go to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle? > > How likely is that? > > > Meann: > Tom Riddle was born 31 Dec.1926 based on the usual formula used to > calculate most years in the HP world - Nick's deathday. If that's > accurate, he was at Hogwarts in 1938. > > Lily, James, and their contemporaries, were born around 1960, give > or take a year, so they would've entered Hogwarts in 1971. That's > a 33-year difference. =) snip Potioncat who just realized she snipped the wrong part: Oh dear! Maths! For what it's worth, the Lexicon lists Riddle's birth year as 1927 and McGonagall's as 1924. I worked it out that Eileen was born in 1931 or '32 but I could push it down to '28 if I tried real hard. I may need to look at it again, because at the time, we didn't have a firm year for Severus's birth. On the other hand, it's a good idea to keep in mind that within the story, math is very fluid. If JKR wanted these three to be class mates---they were. But I don't think we have anything firm that says they were. At least, not for the point of anything we see in the story. As to James's parents, yes, they could have been in school with Riddle. We know they were rather advanced in years when James was born---which could mean anything. But if they were around 40, it gives us birthdates around 1920. Of course if they were 25 (old to be starting in the WW) The birthdates would be 35. Now, I kind of like the idea of Eileen Snape being classmates with Senior-Most Potter and perhaps warning Severus to watch out for anyone by that name.... From moosiemlo at gmail.com Thu Sep 20 04:09:22 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 21:09:22 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709192109j95ee3fbma69e5c037030854@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177247 Lynda: My biggest miss was my thought that the trio would go back to Hogwarts as students. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 05:12:48 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:12:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Meaning of all the Aberforth goat jokes? Message-ID: <933539.44704.qm@web30211.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177248 I didn't understand all of Dumbledore's goat jokes until today when playing around with various obscure word lists I found this: Geotic Magic \Mag"ic\, n. [OE. magique, L. magice, Gr. ? (sc. ?), fr. ?. See Magic, a., and Magi.] A comprehensive name for all of the pretended arts which claim to produce effects by the assistance of supernatural beings, or departed spirits, or by a mastery of secret forces in nature attained by a study of occult science, including enchantment, conjuration, witchcraft, sorcery, necromancy, incantation, etc. An appearance made by some magic. --Chaucer. Pronounced geo-tic, but you can mispronoune it ad go-atic.Most references refer to it as 'dark magic' A pun by JKR? Were the charms that Aberforth performed on goats a refernce to dark magic. Was Aberforth at one time playing with dark magic? What do you think? ~ DA Jones --------------------------------- Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From aceworker at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 05:25:49 2007 From: aceworker at yahoo.com (career advisor) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:25:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Trelawney Award, part II (Who lead the DA?) Message-ID: <946200.49776.qm@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177249 <> I agree with you he was a leader. But was he the 'leader'? He seems to have only been in charge once Ginny didn't come back from Eater Break. Before that it seems pretty clear that Ginny was the main leader. Since she seems to have lead the expedition with Neville and Luna (and others?)for the sword. Seamus seems to have been his second at that point. At least that's the way I imagined it. Did anyone else see it differently ~ DA Jones (Sandy) --------------------------------- Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 05:55:07 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 05:55:07 -0000 Subject: And the Trelawney award goes to.....(Re: Do we really get our closer?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177250 > > Jen: > > > > To get the ball rolling.....my two biggest failed > > predictions, the ones I wrote about ad nauseum, > > OH-so-certain I was on the right track *sniff sniff*: > > > > My closest prediction was......drumroll......taken > > straight from the Prediction contest (throw out > > that first line ): > > Mike: Let's see... my worst prediction, huh? Gosh, there were sooo many bad ones it's hard to choose.;) Alright, I'll have to go with this one. I thought Snape and Dumbledore were in cahoots with the release of the prophesy. I mean, that whole bombshell from Trelawney about Snape being at the door *AFTER* she finished the prophesy, jeez, it looked too much like a set-up. But I was wrong, Neri was right, I tip my hat to your wisdom sir. :D A few of my other predictions that went bad sprang directly from this one. Too many eggs, not enough baskets, I guess. For my best prediction, hmmm, slim pickins here. But I have to go with my guess that Tom Riddle had already made a Horcrux by the time of the Pensieve Sluggy chat. And that all Tom's hemming and hawing was simply leading up to the question of *how many* can one make? My next best one, I can really only take partial credit. I'll let Steve lead in: > bboyminn: > > > > Harry a Horcrux - > > I was sure this was wrong. However in a discussion > I did say that /if/ it was true, then /this/ is > how it would have happened. Someone has already > quoted that post showing how dead on I was. Mike: That was me, Steve, thought you deserved the kudos. :D This ties to my most successful prediction, which, though remarkably close to yours, was done without the aid if yours, since I found that post after DH. Mine was on TK's contest question about what were the Horcruxes. And I quote: g. In Harry, but not encased as the other Horcruxes, it's in him accidentally and likes it there. :) Unlike you Steve, I had always believed that Harry had a piece of VoldieSoul, but I originally kept trying to figure out how to make an accidental Horcrux. It was Snow that turned me on to the idea of a non-encased soul piece. So, I really should give her full credit for this prediction. > bboyminn: > > Slytherin Redemption - > > I predicted that Slytherin would always be Slytherin. > In my view Slytherins created their problems, it's > up to Slytherins to fix it. I also predicted that our > vision of Slytherin was warped because we don't > actually get to see MOST Slytherins. We get to see a > small but unpleasant subset of Slytherins. Mike: I made no predictions on the Slytherin problem, but I have always agreed with this viewpoint, and I was glad to see that you were right with this line of thinking. Mike, who didn't really make a lot of predictions on his own, but rather picked from others predictions which ones he liked best. :) From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Thu Sep 20 07:00:53 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:00:53 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177251 On 2007, Sep 19, , at 17:16, Laura Horowitz wrote: > Laura wrote: >> Like Snape, when Petunia looks at Harry, she sees Lily's eyes and >> James' hair and body type. I think this reminds her continually of >> what magic stole from her - a younger sister who looked up to her >> and loved her. Magic, Snape, and James stole Lily from her. And, >> in some ways, they also took her importance to the family away. >> As a first born, she assumed she had a special place, then along >> came Lily, who not only had a special talent, it was a talent their >> parents appreciated. She was permanently deposed. > > Kneazlecat: > Are you, by any chance, an oldest child? *grin* Actually, no, I am a third (of four). As a middle child, I have been the peacekeeper - I try to soothe others' feelings. But I am also a teacher and I study kids. Birth order does seem to make a difference, especially for firstborns (e.g. more firstborns and onlys are identified as gifted than seconds or more). Dudley is also a firstborn, like Petunia. Harry came when Dudley was around a year and a half. Part of Petunia's neglect of Harry could have been overcompensating Dudley for the analogous loss of importance she felt when Lily came along. She is bound and determined that Dudley won't feel like she did. > Again, you make a > pont I hadn't thought of. The surface reading is that Petunia is > simply jealous of Lily, but yes, the departure of Lily into the > magical world would have had a powerful effect on the Evans family. > Whereas the Grangers seemed to take it in stride (but Hermiione had > no sibs to wory about), the Evanses perhaps didn't handle things as > equitably as they could have. It almost makes you feel sorry for > Petunia. Almost. Like Ender in Ender's Game. Once you get to know your enemy, you begin to love them. To have knowledge so deep of a person and his/her circumstances, you see why they are who they are and you understand. > > Laura wrote: >> Perhaps there is some unfinished business between them [Harry and > Petunia], butPetunia has long since squandered the opportunities to > develop a relationship with Harry. And, like Voldemort, I think she > is too full of resentment to go beyond that. And Harry, who doesn't > yet understand why she resents him, has given up on her, so he > can't reach out either. > > Kneazlecat: > I'm not so sure. Petunia is the only living person who knew Lily > all of her life, so Harry may indeed want to contact her so he can > learn more about his mother. I don't see him having any problem > doing that, and I bet Petunia would be relieved to talk to someone > about Lily who would understand the whole magic/Muggle problem. She > just might want to meet Harry without Vernon knowing about it. I just don't see it. Harry needed a mother throughout his childhood and he only got one through Molly Weasley. The knowledge that Petunia has about Lily is not about the stuff that is important to Harry. Harry feels like he only truly BELONGS to the wizarding world. If he wants more information about his mother, I think he would look to other wizards and witches who knew her in her Hogwarts days. The Marauders are all dead, but there are still magical people alive who knew her. I also don't see it from Petunia's standpoint. I think she would feel relieved to have Harry out of her life. She doesn't want to relive that part of her life. I think she would much prefer to just bury that part of her life. > Laura wrote: >> Dudley is a bully. A bully fears losing. I think Dudley's worst >> memories would have been of a time when he felt lost or >> incompetent at something. In fact, his size may be a >> partial response - if he is big and scary enough, then he won't be >> vulnerable. > > Kneazlecat: > Maybe the Dursleys were the type of parents who tried to protect > their child by instilling fear in him-of germs, foreigners, > strangers, etc. etc. etc. If so, and it seems very in character, > that might account for the feeling of vulnerability underlying > Dudley's bullying. We know for certain that they tried to instill in Dudley a hate and fear of everything magical. We also know that Dudley runs to Mommy or Daddy whenever Harry threatens to use magic - even harmless magic. His fears are confirmed and expanded when he meets Hagrid and gets a tail. Harry's powers terrify Dudley - he can deal with muscle and insults; he is falls apart when trying to deal with powers that he has been taught to fear and doesn't understand. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Sep 20 07:33:47 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:33:47 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing Message-ID: <20070920173347.CUE33405@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177252 Laura wrote: The Marauders are all dead, but there > are still > magical people alive who knew her. > Sharon: OMG THE MARAUDERS ARE ALL DEAD! I hadn't realised that before I read your post (although of course I realised that as individuals they were dead). How sad that Harry has no one left from their little club, not even Lupin.... that is positively tragic IMO. I think I am now mad at JKR for killing them all off -- it never struck me before how absolutely tragic that the Marauders are all gone. All cut down in their primes so to speak, the only connections that Harry had to his past... OMG I may never get over this! (sob) From fitzchivalryhk at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 07:28:34 2007 From: fitzchivalryhk at yahoo.com (fitzchivalryhk) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 07:28:34 -0000 Subject: Snape thoughts of Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177253 > jbmwfb69: > Severus Snape always said Harry was an arrogant > mediocre wizard. Does Harry have mediocre or great > powers? fitz: Like the other posters, I think Harry is an above-average student. However, we have to keep in mind that when Snape said Harry was a mediocre wizard, he was comparing Harry to the other great wizards in the Wizarding World. Harry was supposed to be the saviour of the wizarding world, and as such, was expected to be a great wizard like Dumbledore, Grindelward or Voldemort. Yet, putting aside his "power of love", Harry really was nothing compared to the other great wizards. (Also, his "power of love" relied much on his mother's sacrifice and pure luck.) And from Snape's perspective, that makes him mediocre. From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Sep 20 12:34:48 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:34:48 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <13974062.1190226066268.JavaMail.root@mswamui-billy.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177254 > Bart: > In DH, what was the major event(s) that made you say, "I didn't see THAT one coming!" Potioncat: Snape's death, or rather, the manner of his death. Even as it was about to happen, I didn't catch on. I just knew he needed to get out of there. On a different level, JKR managed to pull off the anticipated events in surprising ways. Nothing was quite as anyone wanted LOLLIPOPS wasn't a romance but a friendship. Harry did die, only he didn't. >Bart: > To give my example: > > Snape being friends with Lily BEFORE Hogwarts. It certainly made a lot of sense in 20/20 hindsight, but I did not see that one coming at all. Potioncat: The Lily-Severus pre-Hogwarts friendship will always be the one that got away. I worked it out shortly before DH came out, but I never posted it. I thought it worked, but that it was too far-fetched. Heck--- none of my other predictions even came close! From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Sep 20 14:51:54 2007 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 14:51:54 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177255 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: I must say that the most surprising (and not in a good > way :-) thing in the book was for me the fall of the Ministry. I have > no idea why, but I didn't expect it at all, didn't even consider the > possibility. It made everything more scary and more dangerous. Hickengruendler: I am a bit annoyed with myself, because I guessed the fall of the ministry for the end of HBP. My thought was, that Voldemort needed to do something, to became worse than ever. (Which he should, according to Trelawney's prediction from PoA). Yet, when nothing happened, I thought I was mistaken and did not even considered the possibility, that it would happen at the beginning of book 7 instead. I really don't know, why. As for the biggest shocker: Even though I always sort of liked him, I did not expect Kreacher's turn-around. That came as a complete surprise. Similarly, that Molly would be the one to defeat Bellatrix in the end, didn't even cross my mind. From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 20 17:22:37 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:22:37 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Meaning of all the Aberforth goat jokes? Message-ID: <19738065.1190308957929.JavaMail.root@mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177256 career advisor: > A pun by JKR? Were the charms that Aberforth performed on goats a >refernce to dark magic. Was Aberforth at one time playing with dark magic? Bart: I have believed, and continue to believe, that it was an homage to Marion Zimmer Bradley, who was a pioneer in getting women openly accepted as fantasy writers. In her series of short stories, LYTHANDE THE STAR-BROWED (originally created as a THIEVES' WORLD character, but later withdrawn for private use), secrets kept by Lythande's order of wandering mages were each vulnerable to a secret they kept. When Lythande uses a local insult against her arch-rival, calling him a despoiler of young goats, she realized that she had discovered his secret. Bart From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Sep 20 16:54:22 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 10:54:22 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trelawney Award, part II (Who lead the DA?) References: <946200.49776.qm@web30212.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <019e01c7fba6$e54e10f0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 177257 > < I think we can all agree that we knew Neville would be important to > the story, but how many of us could imagine him leading the > underground movement at Hogwarts in Harry's absence. I certainly > didn't see it.>> > > I agree with you he was a leader. But was he the 'leader'? He seems to > have only been in charge once Ginny didn't come back from Eater Break. > Before that it seems pretty clear that Ginny was the main leader. Since > she seems to have lead the expedition with Neville and Luna (and > others?)for the sword. > > Seamus seems to have been his second at that point. At least that's the > way I imagined it. Did anyone else see it differently > ~ DA Jones (Sandy) It just seems to me, in the natural order of things, that in the "ideal" case, the true leader stays head of the organization, but in real life, people do move on and get called away to do other things, and who really ends up as leader is anyone who's left with any desire to keep that organization moving forward. Thus, this is where I see Neville. He would not have "risen to the top" if the others had been there still, but when he was alone, he stepped up to the plate to keep the movement alive because he was important to him. Thus, he "became" a leader, not by choice or natural desire to do so, but out of a principled choice to do the right thing. This seems to prove to be another step in his bravery, and could have been the reason that he had the courage to go after Nagini, as he had his leadership and bravery tested for those months at Hogwarts where he had to step up and be the leader. I see Ginny missing as a key part in Neville's growth as the great man that he grew into, and part of why he would make a great teacher later, as he would be able to recognize those students who were not "natural" leaders, but those students who had great potential to become one given the proper encouragement. Shelley From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 17:59:33 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:59:33 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177258 > >>Carol: > > But Harry *isn't* handsome. Betsy Hp: Then why are all those girls falling all over him in HBP? Why does Cho fancy him? Why does Hermione take the time to explain to Harry that he is actually attractive to the opposite sex? Yes, JKR doesn't come right out and *say* this is a very good looking kid we've got here, but she implies it pretty stongly. Honestly, I think we're supposed to take Moaning Myrtle's cooing and sighing as proof positive. (Myrtle is a pretty good judge of the man flesh. It's one of her things.) > >>Carol: > His ordinariness is supposed to be part of his appeal. The > skinny kid with glasses isn't the nerd this time. He's the hero. And > at the same time, he's Everykid. Betsy Hp: Right. A wealthy, supernaturally gifted athlete, tragically orphaned, wickedly abused, chosen by fate, facer of challenges Hercules would shake his head at, everykid. Because he wears glasses. I often sit around and think, what with his dark hair and glasses, Harry's just like me! (Also, Harry's in no way a nerd. It takes more to earn that moniker than wearing glasses. Non-glasses wearing Snape is a nerd.) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > How is Harry *not* a BMOC? > >>Amy: > I think you may be assuming that the average Hogwarts resident > thinks about Harry Potter a lot more often than they really do. > Betsy Hp: I'm assuming every student at Hogwarts has an opinion about Harry Potter, yes. What with the cheering and jeering I think the books back that assumption up. Frankly, I'd love to see evidence of Harry introducing himself to a fellow student and that student saying, "Now who are you again?" Good Lord, even Loony Luna knows who Harry is. And that's really all it takes to be a BMOC. > >>Amy: > ...and I think this is the first time I've ever heard Harry > called the "darling" of most of the staff...most of the staff that > he hardly knows exist, I might point out. > Betsy Hp: And I'll point out (again) that it *doesn't matter* if Harry knows someone or not. They know him. I did make up the "darling of the staff" phrase all by myself. JKR doesn't use it. But the staff (expect for Snape) do seem to like Harry quite a bit. The ones we know anyway. McGonagall, Trewlawney, Hagrid, Flitwick, Sprout, Slughorn all show at various times, that they think Harry is a good boy. And that's really all it takes to be a BMOC. > >>Amy: > I think there's a difference between people knowing of you > (and possibly not thinking badly of you), and liking you well enough > to call yourself popular. Betsy Hp: Ah, see I'd say being known by all is pretty much a massive part of being "popular". I'm not saying Harry's Ferris Bueller. I'm saying he's BMOC. Everyone knows, everyone has an opinion, and everyone thinks Harry's got something they don't and for the most part they admire him for it. Even if sometimes they're angry at him. > >>Amy > To have an exclusive inner circle, you have to have enough people > actually *wanting* to be part of that circle to make > it "exclusive". Betsy Hp: Exactly. And people want to be friends with Harry. (The Creevy brothers are one example.) Ergo, though he doesn't set it up this way on purpose, his circle of friends is "exclusive". > >>Amy: > > *Hermione* is able to convince a group of students to join > > a Defence group led by him in order to pass their DADA OWLs. > >>Betsy Hp: > > By evoking Harry's name. As became clear at their very first > > meeting, which pissed Harry off, but was still the case. > >>Amy: > My point was that there was maybe 30 students, tops, in that group, > and the majority of them were there to pass their OWL/NEWT exams; > not because Harry or his name had any particular pull... Betsy Hp: Ooh, I *strongly* disagree with that. The students (there by invitation only, by the way) were there to hear Harry tell his story. Remember, that's why Harry was so annoyed at Hermione at first. > >>Amy: > > Could he convince half the school body to join in a smear > > campaign against one student? I don't know, I have yet to see > > evidence of it. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Harry did one better. His popularity lead to large group of > > students *literally* smearing three other students. (The OotP > > train stomp.) > >>Amy: > I'm sorry, maybe it's a difference of opinions, but I can't count a > group of six students as a "large" one that somehow surpasses the > combined Households of Slytherin and Hufflepuff, regardless of what > they were doing. Betsy Hp: For one, Draco joined a moving train with that "smear campaign". Hufflepuffs were pissed at Harry for Cedric's sake (battle of the BMOCs ) and Slytherins don't like Harry because of their natural evilness. Draco just made badges for everyone to express an opinion already held. Heck, I'd be surprised if most of the badge wearers (especially the Hufflepuffs) didn't even know who'd made them. (I'll also point out that the other half of the school were cheering *for* Harry. In either case, the entire student body were expressing an opinion about him. He's not just some guy at their school. And that's about all it takes to be a BMOC.) For another, Harry's friends didn't just stick on a badge. They took action on his behalf. They acted *for* Harry. People didn't stick on the badges *for* Draco. (Except *maybe* the Slytherins.) Therefore, when it comes to the clash of popularities, Harry trumps Draco. (Is there ever a time half the student body cheers for Draco?) And I honestly do think, Harry trumps all of his fellow students. Do you have someone in mind as being more popular than Harry? > >>Pippin: > In fact, much of the Draco/Harry interaction takes place > in potions class, where Draco has the staff support and bigger > goons. Betsy Hp: Really? I don't think that's a fact at all. Actually, I think that's wrong. *Snape* will pick on Harry in Potions class, to Draco's amusement. And there are a *handful* of times where Draco says something to Harry while in class. But most of their confrontations takes place outside the classroom. > >>Pippin: > When Harry retaliates it is generally after months or weeks of > having to take it. > Betsy Hp: Again, I don't think this is true. Usually Harry is responding to what Draco is saying at that point in time. Now Harry has a really hard life and bad things happen to him, so he does have a lot of anger boiling away inside. But usually it's not Draco actually *causing* those bad things. Draco just comes along to point and laugh and give Harry a chance to snap. For example: Draco doesn't kill Cedric, but he gives Harry a chance to express his anger over Cedric's murder. > >>Pippin: > Draco before Hogwarts would have been surrounded by people who > deferred to the Malfoys and their sneering treatment the way Borgin > does. Betsy Hp: I agree. But that's not the case in Hogwarts. In Hogwarts, Harry's the bigger name with the bigger pull. As demonstrated to Draco (and us all) by Harry's broom in PS/SS. > >>Pippin: > Draco doesn't expect to be called to account for his words. > Betsy Hp: Honestly, I don't know Draco's motivation behind saying what he says when he says it. But by his... gosh, third year at the outside I think, Draco should've started to figure out that his words get called to account. Betsy Hp From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 18:55:19 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 18:55:19 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: <20070919112737.CUC63135@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177259 --- Sharon Hayes wrote: > Sharon: > This is so interesting! When Fred and George tried to > put their name in the cup, everyone was cheering. So > why was it that when Harry appeared to have gotten > over the age line and had been chosen, that everyone > was so mad at him? ... bboyminn: There is a big difference between putting your name IN and having it come out. The Twins were a few weeks short of being 'of age' and Harry was several years too young to be considered. Further, the Hogwarts Champion, Cedric Diggory, had already been picked. Harry's name could not and should not have come out of the Hat at all; technically it should have been impossible. That certainly raises question regarding how Harry could manage what all assumed couldn't be done. Plus by allegedly entering his name in a way that created a Fourth Champion, Harry was stealing glory from Hufflepuff and Cedric whom everyone would view as the rightful champion. So, it is not as simply as Harry's name coming out. If Harry's name had come out INSTEAD of Cedric, people would have been disappointed and curious, but I think they would have accepted things. And while we are at it, notice that Gryffindors were not all that pleased at Cedric being the Hogwarts Champion. They viewed him as a useless 'pretty boy'. But the fact that Harry's name came out as the fourth impossible champion implies extreme magical skills on Harry's part. Because of this, I think there was an element of fear involved in people's negative reaction. So, we have a complex combination of events and emotions behind the general rejection of Harry as a Champion. Steve/bboyminn From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 20 19:19:22 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:19:22 -0000 Subject: Of Patronuses and Horcruxes (was: And the Trelawney award goes to... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177260 The current thread on how far predictions matched up with the final events has been an interesting one to browse. I did have three things which I wanted to happen or, as the case may be, not to happen which I carefully did not publish and which in the event I claimed about one and a half of them in a post on one or other of the groups to which I regularly write. I was more open in writing regularly that I expected Harry to live and I did not believe that he was a Horcrux because of that assumption. but of course, we now know that we were apparently wrong as Dumbledore pointed out: "'You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make." (DH "King's Cross" p.568 UK edition) But I believe that, whether deliberate or not, we have been on the receiving end of misdirection and misinformation on the part of JKR in two areas ? Patronuses and Horcruxes. In HBP and DH, she has unveiled two new models: the Patronus version 2.0 and the Horcrux version 2.0 which offer improved performance. Dwelling for a moment on the Patronus, let us consider the specification for the Patronus version 1.0: `"The spell I am going to try and teach you is highly advanced magic, Harry ? well beyond Ordinary Wizarding Level. It is called the Patronus Charm." "How does it work?" said Harry nervously. "Well, when it works correctly, it conjures up a Patronus," said Lupin, "which is a kind of Anti-Dementor ? a guardian which acts as a shield between you and the Dementor." Harry had a sudden vision of himself crouching behind a Hagrid-sized figure holding a large club. Professor Lupin continued, "The Patronus is a kind of positive force, a projection of the very things that the Dementor feeds on ? hope, happiness, the desire to survive ? but it cannot feel despair, as real humans can, so the Dementors can't hurt it. But I must warn you, Harry, that the Charm might be too advanced for you. Many qualified wizards have difficulty with it." "What does a Patronus look like?" said Harry curiously. "Each one is unique to the wizard who conjures it."' (HBP "The Patronus" p.176 UK edition) But our new Patronus is a different beast. It isn't a protective guardian, it seems to be primarily for communicating with others. Snape's is a doe, while McGonagall even manages a triple Patronus: `She marched towards the door and, she did so she raised her wand. From the tip burst three silver cats with spectacle markings round their eyes. The Patronuses ran sleekly ahead .' (DH "The Sacking of Severus Snape" p.480 UK edition) And we know that apparently their appearance can be changed: `"And incidentally," said Snape, standing back to allow Harry to pass him, "I was interested to see your new Patronus."' (HBP "Snape Victorious" p.153 UK edition) So we have a revised version Patronus. How about the new Horcrux? In the Pensieve memory which Harry retrieved from Slughorn, we find the following: `"A Horcrux is the word used for an object in which a person has concealed part of their soul." "I don't quite understand how that works, though, sir," said Riddle. His voice was carefully controlled but Harry could sense his excitement. "Wel;l, you split your soul, you see," said Slughorn, "and hide part of it in an object outside the body .." .:How do you split your soul?" "Well," said Slughorn uncomfortably, "you must understand that the soul is supposed to remain intact and whole. Splitting it is an act of violation, it is against nature." "But how do you do it?" "By an act of evil ? the supreme act of evil. By committing murder. Killing rips the soul apart. The wizard intent upon creating a Horcrux would use the damage to his advantage: he would encase the torn portion ?" "Encase? But how ?" "There is a spell, do not ask me, I don't know" said Slughorn ' (HBP "Horcruxes" from pp. 464/65 UK edition) We know that up to DH, Voldemort deliberately created six Horcruxes:the diary, the ring, the locket, the cup, the diadem and Nagini. However, we know more than Voldemort: `" . If there comes a time when Lord Voldemort stops sending that snake forth to do his bidding but keeps it safe beside him, under magical protection, then, I think, it will be safe to tell Harry." "Tell him what?" Dumbledore 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 Lord Voldemort and a fragment of Voldemort's soul was blasted apart from the whole and latched itself on to the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of Voldemort lives inside Harry ."' (DH "The Prince's Tale" pp.550/51 UK edition) `"You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make. He had rendered his soul so unstable that it broke apart when he committed those acts of unspeakable evil, the murder of your parents and the attempted killing of a child. But what escaped from that room was even less than he knew. He left part of himself latched to you, the would-be victim who had survived."' (DH "King's Cross" p.568 UK edition) So we have a number of differences which applied to Harry when he became the prototype Horcrux 2.0 and Voldemort's seventh. First, he is the only human Horcrux. Except Nagini, all the others are inanimate objects. Dumbledore said, in HBP, that it was dangerous to make a living Horcrux which had happened, unknown to him, in this event. Second, does the "latching" onto the nearest living soul create the same result as "encasing" a soul fragment using the correct spell? This does throw up a side issue at this point. Voldemort used murders to create the six Horcruxes we listed. But, he has carried out more than six murders. So his soul has been split more than six times. Surely this means that the soul fragments which have not been used for Horcrux creation are still in Voldemort and his soul resembles a broken cup in pieces on the kitchen floor, all together but not linked. When the curse backfired at Godric's Hollow on the fateful Hallowe'en night, his soul was obviously split again. But why didn't the torn piece just remain with the other "wreckage" in Voldemort. Why, on this occasion, was the fragment `blasted apart'? I think those of us who argued against Harry being a Horcrux should claim a moral victory; Harry wasn't a `standard' Horcrux created by the usual method. His conversion to a Horcrux was unplanned and unseen by Voldemort and designed by JKR to pull the rug from under those of us who dearly wanted Harry to be safe and well. Sneaky. :-) From cottell at dublin.ie Thu Sep 20 19:47:59 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:47:59 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177261 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "starview316" wrote: > Every new student was cheered at their Sorting Mus responds: It's a key scene, because it establishes the position of each student in relation to the rest of the school. And here's the scene: " 'Potter, Harry!' As Harry stepped forward, whispers suddenly broke out like little hissing fires all over the hall. '*Potter*, did she say?' '*The* Harry Potter?' The last thing Harry saw before the hat dropped over his eyes was the Hall full of people craning to get a good look at him." "He was so relieved to have been chosen and not put in Slytherin, he hardly noticed that he was getting the loudest cheer yet. Percy the Prefect stood up and shook his hand vigorously, while the Weasley twins yelled, 'We got Potter! We got Potter!'. Harry sat down opposite the ghost in the ruff he'd seen earlier. The ghost patted his arm, giving Harry the sudden, horrible feeling he's just plunged it into a bucket of ice-cold water." [PS, UK pb: 91] The cheering is remarked on for few of the sortees - Hannah Abbott is cheered by Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor cheers for Lavender Brown, but the only other acclaim in canon is for Terry Boot and for Ron, who get clapped (no cheering mentioned). Malfoy is described as walking to the Slytherin table, looking pleased with himself - no clapping, no cheering (damn right, too ). No, every student doesn't get cheered. Harry's sorting, both before and after, is very different to the others'. Before he's even sorted, he's a school celebrity. Actually, there's a really interesting little detail in there. Harry is relieved that he has been been "chosen and not put in Slytherin". Not "sorted", which is what has actually - to the casual observer - been going on. Others get sorted. Harry gets chosen. And what's the opposite of being "chosen" in this charming magical world? Being put in Slytherin. Mus. From rist33920 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 20:20:11 2007 From: rist33920 at yahoo.com (Dale) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:20:11 -0000 Subject: Page 265 of Prisoner of Azkaban and Snapes Doe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177262 On page 265 of the American version of POA toward the end of the page there is a paragraph which reads: He (Harry) had a very strange dream. He was walking through a forest, his Firebolt over his shoulder, following something silvery-white. It was winding it's way through the trees ahead and he could only catch glimpses of it between the leaves. Anxious to catch up with it, he sped up, but as he moved faster, so did his quarry. Harry broke into a run, and ahead he heard hooves gathering speed. Now he was running flat out and ahead he could hear galloping. Then he turned a corner into a clearing and - I was floored when I read this after reading book 7!! Does that sound like when Snape's doe leads Harry to the sword or what??? Dale From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 20:32:37 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 20:32:37 -0000 Subject: Page 265 of Prisoner of Azkaban and Snapes Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177263 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dale" wrote: > > On page 265 of the American version of POA toward the end of the page > there is a paragraph which reads: > > He (Harry) had a very strange dream. He was walking through a forest, his Firebolt over his shoulder, following something silvery- white. It was winding it's way through the trees ahead and he could only catch glimpses of it between the leaves. Anxious to catch up with it, he sped up, but as he moved faster, so did his quarry. Harry broke into a run, and ahead he heard hooves gathering speed. Now he was running flat out and ahead he could hear galloping. Then he turned a corner into a clearing and - > > I was floored when I read this after reading book 7!! Does that sound like when Snape's doe leads Harry to the sword or what??? > > Dale ***Katie: It does...but given the book that that description appears in...I feel like she was referring to Harry's own Patronus, and the ending of POA. I mean, the whole Stag thing was very important throughout POA, especially finding out who Moody, Wormtail, Padfoot, and Prongs were. However, having said that, there's no reason it couldn't have been a double meaning moment, as Jo already had the whole thing in her head, she could certainly have been doing some foreshadowing...and of course, no one would have made any connection to Snape or Lily, because we didn't know the story. Good catch! Very interesting. I have to get my book and think on that some more! : ) Katie > From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Thu Sep 20 21:26:55 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:26:55 -0000 Subject: FILK, sort of: A Snape ther was Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177264 A SNAPE ther was, and that a nasty man That fro the tyme that he first bigan To teche Potiouns, he loved accuracye, And abilitee, but nat curteisye. Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre, And to lengths hadde he gonne (no man ferre) As wel in Hogwarts as in Malfoynesse, And never honoured for his worthinesse. At cauldron's side he was, whan they blew up; Ful ofte tyme his pupils hadde screw up Aboven all classes in thatte school. 'Idiot' hadde he seyd and eek 'You fool!', No teaching man so ofte of his degree. At Voldemorte's last sege eek hadde he be Of the school, and hidden in the Shack. For he hadde Eten Deeth, then changed tack And spyed for Dumbledore secretly Many tymes a traytor hadde he be. At mortal perilles hadde he been fiftene, And foughten for our side, always unseen And duelled thryes, and ay slayn his fo. With the Riotoures had he been also And eek Lily, whanne they were all at school Of which came Sirius' pranke cruelle And evermore they hadde a mightee hate Which later sent that Dogge to his fate, And for his yonge errors he had payde. He never yet no vileinye unsayde In al his lyf, un-to no maner wight And to his pupils was a feersome sight. But for to tellen yow of his array, His robes were gode, but he was nat gay. Of black he wered a Professor's geoun Al greasy with his long hair hanging down; For he was late y-come from his short lyf, And wol now resten from his grief and strife. I don't think there's anything I can say in defence of this, so I'll just link to an online version: http://www.richardbrodie.com/Chaucer/Prologue.html - fourth paragraph down - for comparisons, apologise to the shade of Geoffrey Chaucer, and hope that you think my words worth rather more than a turd. Ann From starview316 at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 20 21:49:55 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:49:55 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177265 > Betsy Hp: > I'm assuming every student at Hogwarts has an opinion about Harry > Potter, yes. What with the cheering and jeering I think the books > back that assumption up. Frankly, I'd love to see evidence of Harry > introducing himself to a fellow student and that student saying, "Now > who are you again?" Good Lord, even Loony Luna knows who Harry is. > > And that's really all it takes to be a BMOC. Amy: And I still strongly disagree, both that this is all it takes to be BMOC, and that the books back this assumption up. Harry is notorious. Everyone knows his name. I get that. Still think it's extremely weird to assume that this is all it takes to be BMOC. Especially since we have a firmly canon BMOC in Cedric Diggory, and Harry didn't even know his name until the third year. > > >>Amy: > > ...and I think this is the first time I've ever heard Harry > > called the "darling" of most of the staff...most of the staff that > > he hardly knows exist, I might point out. > > > > Betsy Hp: > And I'll point out (again) that it *doesn't matter* if Harry knows > someone or not. They know him. I did make up the "darling of the > staff" phrase all by myself. JKR doesn't use it. But the staff > (expect for Snape) do seem to like Harry quite a bit. The ones we > know anyway. McGonagall, Trewlawney, Hagrid, Flitwick, Sprout, > Slughorn all show at various times, that they think Harry is a good > boy. > > And that's really all it takes to be a BMOC. Amy: (Sorry, I did forget about Slughorn, I should have added him to the list). Nor do I disagree that they think he's a good boy; this still doesn't indicate to me that any more than maybe four teachers on that list (though even Trelawney's a long stretch) give him more than a passing thought when he's not drawing their immediate attention. Of these four, it's possible that three of them might still be raving about Harry years after graduation (the way McG, Flitwick, Sprout and Hagrid did about Sirius and James, or the way Slughorn does about Lily). This is what, to me, would indicate either BMOC, or "darling" of the staff. Them not having Snape-level hatred for Harry doesn't quite meet the cut. Neither, for that matter, does the lukewarm approval of six members of the staff, out of who knows how many. > > >>Amy: > > I think there's a difference between people knowing of you > > (and possibly not thinking badly of you), and liking you well enough > > to call yourself popular. > Betsy Hp: > Ah, see I'd say being known by all is pretty much a massive part of > being "popular". I'm not saying Harry's Ferris Bueller. I'm saying > he's BMOC. Everyone knows, everyone has an opinion, and everyone > thinks Harry's got something they don't and for the most part they > admire him for it. Even if sometimes they're angry at him. I guess this is where we'd have to agree to disagree. Because I feel there's a huge difference between popularity and notoriety, and the term BMOC has strong connotations to the former, rather than the latter. Maybe I feel particularly iffy about this issue because I came from a high school with about 100 students in total, and everyone knew everyone else's name, so I just can't agree that this is all it takes to be BMOC. If "everybody" really did have a firm, admiring opinion of Harry, his "popularity" would not fluctuate as much as it does. You can't decide one day that you like someone because you've decided to believe he DIDN'T Petrify your friend; and then later on dislike the same person because you've decided he stole your House glory from you, and then decide *again* that you like him despite the rumours that he's a liar. Well, of course you could, but that just says that you never had a firm opinion on said person in the first place. And I'm not saying the students' opinion of Harry has to be fixed in one place all the time; in fact, my point is rather that it *isn't* fixed. But you mentioned later on in your post that Harry's friends are rarely swayed by whatever happens to be the rumor of the week, and you're right, but that's because they know him well enough to have a fixed opinion -- and they like him well enough for that opinion to be a good, admirable one. They like him well enough to fight for him (regarding the badges, anyway), as you pointed out. That's what I personally think it means to be popular, in the way you seem to define Big Man on Campus. For example, you did say people weren't wearing the badges *for* Draco specifically, but the Hufflepuffs at least, and some of the Ravenclaws were wearing the badges *for* Cedric, because they all liked him well enough to make an issue of this; this didn't happen with Harry, not even on the part of the Gryffindors. Enough people have to actually like you -- to do that, they have to actually know you, at least well enough to reasonably guess when something said about you is true, and when it's utter BS. We know that the overall good opinion about Cedric is a fixed one, because we know the Weasley Twins (and Seamus, I think) don't like him, yet the general consensus is STILL that Cedric is the most popular guy in school. If the Weasley Twins had started a rumour about Cedric, I doubt it would have changed anything. I'm well aware of the "popular-mean-girls-that-no-one-actually-likes- but-everyone-follows-to-keep-out-of-troube" stereotype, but IMO, not only is that stereotype a huge contradiction in itself, I also gather it's not necessarily what you are referring to with Harry, yes? > > >>Amy: > > My point was that there was maybe 30 students, tops, in that group, > > and the majority of them were there to pass their OWL/NEWT exams; > > not because Harry or his name had any particular pull... > > Betsy Hp: > Ooh, I *strongly* disagree with that. The students (there by > invitation only, by the way) were there to hear Harry tell his > story. Remember, that's why Harry was so annoyed at Hermione at > first. > Amy: Like I said, because they wanted to find out whether or not he was crazy. How does this indicate popularity? Btw, if the students were there by invite only, exactly what was up with Zacharias and Marietta? > > >>Amy: > > I'm sorry, maybe it's a difference of opinions, but I can't count a > > group of six students as a "large" one that somehow surpasses the > > combined Households of Slytherin and Hufflepuff, regardless of what > > they were doing. > > Betsy Hp: > For one, Draco joined a moving train with that "smear campaign". > Hufflepuffs were pissed at Harry for Cedric's sake (battle of the > BMOCs ) and Slytherins don't like Harry because of their natural > evilness. Draco just made badges for everyone to express an opinion > already held. Heck, I'd be surprised if most of the badge wearers > (especially the Hufflepuffs) didn't even know who'd made them. Amy: Natural evilness or whatever aside, isn't this the basic idea behind the success of being picked on? You can't get people to laugh en masse at someone for an opinion that only you hold, no matter who you are. Btw, it wasn't just the Hufflepuffs -- Ravenclaws were wearing the badges, too. If this example doesn't work for you, though, how about "Weasley is Our King"? Maybe Draco's fainting dramatics that had the Slytherin table in hysterics? However Harry personally feels about the students laughing at him, there's no way to spin six students to a quarter (or half, or even three quarters of the school), as Harry having more social influence than Draco. I've seen them cheer for Harry, I'm not saying that he's "just some guy at their school", I'll even grant that the students cheer over something he's done enough times to indicate that they (for the most part) have a good opinion of him. But we're never shown in canon that Harry has the kind of influence it would take to get huge masses of people to point and laugh at one person, whereas we're shown on at least three separate occasions that Draco has done exactly that. Draco rarely has the upper hand in his and Harry's confrontations, but I really can't see any "taking on the Man" aspect in it. That's not just about taking on someone a lot of people like, that also implies taking on someone when the general masses are far more likely to laugh at you than at him. And maybe that's what should happen, since the things Draco goes through at Harry's hands are fairly humiliating. But that is not how it happens. The closest that might apply is when Draco is knocked over by Harry's Patronus, and even then we'd have to assume that more people other than Harry and Ron are laughing at Draco. In their more frequent, non-physical fights, it's usually Draco who prompts the laughter at Harry's expense from large groups of people. Amy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 21:58:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:58:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177266 Carol: > > > > But Harry *isn't* handsome. > > Betsy Hp: > Then why are all those girls falling all over him in HBP? Why does Cho fancy him? Why does Hermione take the time to explain to Harry that he is actually attractive to the opposite sex? Caerol again: I already answered that. In one case (Yule Ball), he's just gotten past a dragon. In the other case (Slughorn's party), he's just been involved in a fight with Death Eaters and Voldemort, so his claim that Voldemort is back has been confirmed. (Also, he's just won a game against Slytherin, which makes him popular with the Gryffindors.) In both cases, it's his athletic ability combined with a hero image (underage kid against a dragon or a Dark wizard). Nobody, not even Romilda Vane, says a word about Harry's looks, in contrast to all the swooning over handsome Cedric. Even in the Potterverse, girls aren't attracted to boys solely because of looks. VIKTOR KRUM, remember? There's also athletic ability, real or perceived heroism (he did have help with the dragon, not to mention with Voldemort in the MoM, but they don't know it), fame, and the whole David-and-Goliath syndrome, in which a young and weak person (usually a man or boy) goes against a seemingly unbeatable opponent and wins. Glamor, I suppose. Celebrity. Looks have, in this instance, nothing to do with it. Nor does his money, which no one knows about. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, JKR doesn't come right out and *say* this is a very good looking kid we've got here, but she implies it pretty stongly. Carol: Where? Just one quote implying that Harry is handsome or good-looking will suffice. Carol earlier: > > His ordinariness is supposed to be part of his appeal. The skinny kid with glasses isn't the nerd this time. He's the hero. And > at the same time, he's Everykid. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. A wealthy, supernaturally gifted athlete, tragically orphaned, wickedly abused, chosen by fate, facer of challenges Hercules would shake his head at, everykid. Because he wears glasses. I often sit around and think, what with his dark hair and glasses, Harry's just like me! > > (Also, Harry's in no way a nerd. It takes more to earn that moniker > than wearing glasses. Non-glasses wearing Snape is a nerd.) Carol responds: I meant that kids who wear glasses are usually stereotyped as nerds in films and kids' books and cartoons. It's rare to find a hero who wears them. (It reminds me of the old Dorothy Parker line, "Men seldom make passes/at girls who wear glasses.") Also, I was using "nerd" to mean "geek." You know, an unpopular, rather dorky type who may or may not be an intellectual like Snape, who is a "nerd" only in the sense that he wasn't popular and preferred intellectual activities to athletic ones. Male characters who wear glasses, especially boys or young men, are usually either geeky dorks or wimpy intellectuals. Peter Parker and Superman's alter ego whose name escapes me take off their glasses when they become heroes. Harry (who never becomes a *super*hero because he defeats Voldie through luck or Love and not through his own much weaker powers) keeps his glasses on. As for Harry as Everykid, he comes from a dysfunctional family; has a few exceptional powers (the scar connection, Parseltongue, his Patronus) but is no better at other forms of magic (Potions, Transfiguration, Charms) than Ron; procrastinates on his homework and sometimes cheats by copying Hermione's or letting Ron copy his (not to mention taking credit for the HBP's Potions improvements); likes sports better than schoolwork--yeah. Everykid--except that he has that scar and Voldemort keeps trying to kill him. As Snape says, he escapes mainly through luck and more talented friends. If you still think that being short and skinny, having hair that sticks up in back like Dennis the Menace's, wearing glasses, having a scar on his forehead, and having "knobbly knees" makes a boy handsome, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think it makes him ordinary, at least in the looks department. In fact, if he let his hair grow long and didn't wash it (and had a somewhat larger, hooked nose) he'd look very much like the young Severus Snape. Not one single character ever refers to Harry as handsome. He's idolized (when he's idolized, which is by no means all the time) either for his athletic prowess (like James) or because he's the Boy who Lived/the Chosen One. Ginny has always idolized him as "the boy who defeated the Dark Lord" (even when all he's done is survive an AK). Even Cho never refers to his looks. She's a Seeker like him and, as far as I can tell, chiefly admires his athletic ability. Once he gets past the dragon and the other TWT tasks, she admires that, too. She's torn between him--the youngest TWT champion--and Cedric--the handsome TWT champion. You keep ignoring my references to Viktor Krum, but Viktor is concrte proof that Hogwarts girls will idolize a boy for athletic ability and fame without regard to his appearance. (Viktor walks like a duck and looks like a dark-browed vulture. Sorry, Viktor. I do like you, but you're not good looking.) Harry, unlike Krum, is only intermittently popular. He has intervals when he's the least popular kid in school and is even being maligned by the Daily Prophet and much of the WW as a lying show-off. And neither his wealth, which no one knows about, nor his looks, which would be completely ordinary if not for his scar, has anything to do with his (fluxuating and inconsistent) popularity. Both his popularity and his unpopularity are determined by how many points he earns or loses for his House (or school), the Daily Prophet's depictions, and incidents like the snake he supposedly urged to attack Justin Finch-Fletchley in CoS. Carol, granting that his bouts of popularity happen to coincide with important social events like the Yule Ball and the Christmas party thanks to JKR's plot needs From starview316 at yahoo.ca Thu Sep 20 21:59:36 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 21:59:36 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177267 Mus: > "He was so relieved to have been chosen and not put in Slytherin, > he hardly noticed that he was getting the loudest cheer yet. Percy > the Prefect stood up and shook his hand vigorously, while the > Weasley twins yelled, 'We got Potter! We got Potter!'. Harry sat > down opposite the ghost in the ruff he'd seen earlier. The ghost > patted his arm, giving Harry the sudden, horrible feeling he's just > plunged it into a bucket of ice-cold water." [PS, UK pb: 91] > The cheering is remarked on for few of the sortees - Hannah Abbott > is cheered by Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor cheers for Lavender Brown, > but the only other acclaim in canon is for Terry Boot and for Ron, > who get clapped (no cheering mentioned). Malfoy is described as > walking to the Slytherin table, looking pleased with himself - no > clapping, no cheering (damn right, too ). No, every student > doesn't get cheered. Amy: It's not actually written in the books, no, but personally I'm more inclined to believe that JKR didn't feel like writing "A cheer rose from the ___ table" every time a student got sorted, than to believe the students of the Houses decided to choose who to cheer for and when. There's no reason for the Hufflepuffs to cheer Hannah and not, for example, Justin Finch-Fletchely. Mus: > > Actually, there's a really interesting little detail in there. > Harry is relieved that he has been been "chosen and not put in > Slytherin". Not "sorted", which is what has actually - to the > casual observer - been going on. Others get sorted. Harry gets > chosen. > And what's the opposite of being "chosen" in this charming magical > world? Being put in Slytherin. Or, if we feel like looking at it from a non-subtext-ive POV, being Squibbed -- Harry was freaking out about being sent home without even having been Sorted moments before. Amy From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 20 23:43:54 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:43:54 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177268 Mus: > > Harry's sorting, both before and after, is very different to the > others'. Before he's even sorted, he's a school celebrity. > > Actually, there's a really interesting little detail in there. Harry > is relieved that he has been been "chosen and not put in Slytherin". > Not "sorted", which is what has actually - to the casual observer - > been going on. Others get sorted. Harry gets chosen. > > And what's the opposite of being "chosen" in this charming magical > world? Being put in Slytherin. > > Mus. lizzyben: And that's what it always comes back to, doesn't it? There were these little hints all along that could be ignored until the Big Finale confirmed JKR's world-view. I keep forgetting that none of this matters anymore - it doesn't matter who starts the fights or who over-reacts or who is BMOC. Harry is the saved, Draco is the damned. Harry is the Elect, Snape is the reprobate. Harry wins because he's got God on his side. What's left to debate? I really love Magpie's post about "angelic concern" AND "devilish fun" because I'm now seeing it all over the narrative. Harry is "Everykid" AND "The Chosen One"/Jesus, AND a super-celebrity sports star. He's the "underdog" AND he always wins! He's normal-looking AND he has girls chasing him. He's nice AND he gets payback! He hates Dark Arts AND he uses some cool hexes on the bad guys! And the ultimate expression of this: HP is a "revenge fantasy" AND a "Christian allegory". Neat. lizzyben, noting that we've got quite a thread title going. From starview316 at yahoo.ca Fri Sep 21 00:17:35 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:17:35 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177269 > lizzyben: > I keep forgetting that none of this matters anymore - it doesn't > matter who starts the fights or who over-reacts or who is BMOC. > Harry is the saved, Draco is the damned. Harry is the Elect, > Snape is the reprobate. Harry wins because he's got God on his > side. What's left to debate? Amy: Not to be argumentative or anything, ('cause for the most part, I agree with a lot of what you said here) but was Draco really "damned" in the HP series? I don't know if it's been discussed before, but even given the heavy connotations of Slytherin = the damned in the final book, I'm hard pressed to believe that anyone reading this series will not see a forgiven, if not "redeemed" Draco in DH. The narrative was extremely sympathetic to him. I'd say one of the major anvils in DH was that Draco didn't want to be a Death Eater, in case no one got that from HBP. I don't know exactly who said it, but Draco has a normal family, wife and kid, in the epilogue, and that if anything indicated that he'd been "redeemed" in JKR's world. Amy From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 02:32:10 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:32:10 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177270 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > But Harry *isn't* handsome. > Betsy Hp: > Then why are all those girls falling all over him in HBP? Why does > Cho fancy him? Why does Hermione take the time to explain to Harry > that he is actually attractive to the opposite sex? It's very interesting that us readers imagine the same character so differently! I really think there is no point in arguing here, because, if you had a certain image in your head for a few years, no argument will change it, I guess :-). I personally never in my life imagined Harry as handsome. I took his first description very seriously, and this is how I see Harry even now, after the last book (only taller, of course). I see him as a very ordinary-looking boy with very beautiful eyes. If Harry was handsome, someone would have mentioned it, at least once, but no one ever does. When he goes on his date with Cho, Pansy Parkinson teases them, saying: "Urgh, Chang, I don't think much of your taste .... At least Diggory was good-looking!" Even Hermione, when she explains to Harry in HBP why he suddenly became "fanciable", leaves his looks out of it. She only mentions that he's grown a lot. BTW, although Harry has grown, he didn't manage to become tall, because in DH he is still shorter than Draco and even shorter than Bellatrix (I mean Hermione!Bellatrix). Again, it's useless to argue here, IMO. We all have the images of all the characters in our heads, and we all will stick with those images, whatever someone else might say. In my head Harry is not handsome, and I'm glad that he isn't. zanooda, who always believed that Daniel Radcliffe(sp?) was too good- looking to play Harry ... From ajoyb22000 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 00:57:50 2007 From: ajoyb22000 at yahoo.com (Angela Billings) Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:57:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Trelawney Award, part II Message-ID: <867650.69551.qm@web45005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177271 What surprised me the most was that JKR really showed a different side of Dumbledore and Snape. I didn't see the calculating way Dumbledore used Harry coming at all. I had heard from other HP sites that JKR stated that the big 3 (Harry, Hermione and Ron) would not die, but I was almost certain that Ron was a goner. I loved the book and the way it ended. Thanking JKR for a fabulous ride - Angela From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 04:02:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 04:02:49 -0000 Subject: Of Patronuses and Horcruxes (was: And the Trelawney award goes to... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177272 > Geoff: > But our new Patronus is a different beast. It isn't a protective > guardian, it seems to be primarily for communicating with > others. Snape's is a doe, while McGonagall even manages a > triple Patronus: zgirnius: A Patronus is first used as a communications device in GoF. (In "The Madness of Barty Crouch, by Albus Dumbledore, to summon Hagrid. He casts the incantation nonverbally.) > GoF: > "Should I go and get someone?" said Harry. "Madam Pomfrey?" > "No," said Dumbledore swiftly. "Stay here." > He raised his wand into the air and pointed it in the direction of Hagrid's cabin. Harry saw something silvery dart out of it and streak away through the trees like a ghostly bird. Then Dumbledore bent over Krum again, pointed his wand at him, and muttered, "Ennervate." > Krum opened his eyes. He looked dazed. When he saw Dumbledore, he tried to sit up, but Dumbledore put a hand on his shoulder and made him lie still. > "He attacked me!" Krum muttered, putting a hand up to his head. "The old madman attacked me! I vos looking around to see vare Potter had gone and he attacked from behind!" > "Lie still for a moment," Dumbledore said. > The sound of thunderous footfalls reached them, and Hagrid came panting into sight with Fang at his heels. He was carrying his crossbow. zgirnius: Rowling explained post-GoF, in an interview or her site, that Dumbledore discovered a way to use the Patronuses as communiations devices and this was the preferred method for secure communication among member in the Order of the Phoenix. I do not find it odd that Lupin skipped this additional information, which would not be in any textbook, which is irrelevant to Harry's present needs in PoA, and which is an Order secret, in his discussion of the Patronus Charm in PoA. > Geoff: > And we know that apparently their appearance can be > changed: > `"And incidentally," said Snape, standing back to allow > Harry to pass him, "I was interested to see your new > Patronus."' > (HBP "Snape Victorious" p.153 UK edition) zgirnius: Again, what a corporeal Patronus looks like, and what causes it to look like that, is beyond the scope of the PoA discussion. I would not say this is an improvement, but a revelation of additional information. Also, their appearance changes, but 'can be changed' suggests agency, which is not how I understand it. I would say, the form 'can change'. (As is explained by Lupin in HBP, emotional upheavals can cause this, as in Tonks' case. She did not make her Patronus change - when she fell hard enough for Lupin, it changed on its own accord.) > Geoff: > First, he is the only human Horcrux. Except Nagini, all the > others are inanimate objects. zgirnius: But we DO have the example of Nagini. Supporters of the Harry!Horcrux theory definitely considered this a choice bit of evidence. > Geoff: > I think those of us who argued against Harry being a > Horcrux should claim a moral victory; Harry wasn't a > `standard' Horcrux created by the usual method. zgirnius: Claim away . However, this was always the majority opinion in the Horcrux!Harry camp, that Harry became a Horcrux by accident at GH when the soul bit torn off by Lily's murder lodged itelf in him. The exact mechanism never interested me - I had no plans to make one myself. But those who did find that question interesting, suggested a number of mechanisms including one pretty close to the one Rowling used. From doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 07:37:43 2007 From: doddiemoemoe at yahoo.com (doddiemoemoe) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 07:37:43 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177273 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 3, The Dursleys Departing This chapter serves several purposes, as is common to early chapters of HP canon. Jo is filling in information and moving the plot along at the same time. The chapter begins with Vernon interrupting Harry's packing in his usual rude manner. Vernon is wavering in his decision to pack up Petunia and Dudley and leave the house. Although he has been told that he and his family are in danger, Vernon suspects Harry of plotting with "his lot" to get the house on Privet Drive away from the Dursleys, a theory that Harry shoots down in short order. Harry reminds Vernon that Harry himself isn't the source of this information. Kingsley Shacklebolt and Arthur Weasley have recently paid a visit to Privet Drive, we learn, to explain to the Dursleys that the protective spells around Harry will end the moment he turns 17, thus putting both him and them in mortal danger from Voldemort and the Death Eaters. The Order of the Phoenix has offered to protect the Dursleys, but that means that all three of them will have to go into hiding. Vernon wants to know why the Ministry of Magic isn't offering protection, and Harry explains again that the Order believes that the Ministry has been infiltrated by DEs. Vernon then expresses his dissatisfaction that Kingsley himself isn't going to come and take the Dursleys. Instead, the job has been given to Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones, as Kingsley is guarding the Prime Minister. Vernon expresses his dissatisfaction with the qualifications of Dedalus and Hestia, and Harry reminds him with some impatience that disasters and general malaise continue to attack Britain, and that this is due to DE activity and the increasing presence of dementors. At this point, Dudley enters the conversation. He clearly remembers his encounter with the dementors and isn't eager to repeat the experience. While Vernon continues to bluster his objections to the plan, Dudley announces that he will go with the Order members. That decides his parents, and Vernon ceases his complaints immediately. Harry goes to his room to finish packing and tries to mollify Hedwig, who is none too pleased with her recent confinement to her cage. When he hears Dedalus and Hestia arrive, he goes downstairs to help them deal with his relatives. Dedalus explains (in his usual ebullient manner) that the 3 Dursleys and the 2 Order members will drive together about 10 miles away from Privet Drive before Disapparating to their safe location. This precaution is necessary because the Ministry is looking for reasons to arrest Harry, and any suspicion that he has performed underage magic could give them an excuse to do so. Harry is to wait at the house for his escort, who, it appears, will not be just Mad-Eye as he had expected. Hestia tells Harry that Mad-Eye will give him the details, but that the Dursleys must leave so that they will be far enough away to Disapparate at the same moment that Harry leaves Privet Drive for good, thus breaking the protective enchantment that Lily gave him. Hestia and Dedalus prepare to leave the room so that the Dursleys and Harry can say their goodbyes, but Vernon says an abrupt goodbye, stopping himself before he can shake Harry's hand. Petunia avoids looking at Harry altogether. But then comes an unexpected objection- Dudley asks why Harry isn't coming with them. His parents are completely flummoxed by this question. Once Vernon realizes that Dudley is serious, he tells Dudley that Harry doesn't want to come along, adding, with a glare at Harry, "do you?" But Dudley isn't satisfied with this answer and asks, "But where's he going to go?" By now, Vernon and Petunia are getting worried about Dudley. Vernon gives his usual perfunctory answer, referring once again to Harry's lot. Hestia finds this insulting to Harry and protests to Vernon, but Vernon is indifferent to her protests and leaves the room. Harry answers for him that the Dursleys aren't concerned about his whereabouts and consider him "a waste of space". And Dudley responds, "I don't think you're a waste of space." Harry is utterly unprepared to hear Dudley express this sentiment. He thinks about the little contact he's had with Dudley this summer and the previous one, and realizes that things have changed, although he has been too preoccupied to pay attention. He finds himself "rather touched" but still wants the moment to end, as it is obviously difficult for Dudley to express himself and awkward for Harry to hear his open expression of concern. Petunia, however, is moved to tears by Dudley's sudden show of humanitarianism. Hestia and Dedalus watch this scene in bemusement, and Vernon stomps back in to hurry everyone along. Hestia and Dedalus bid Harry goodbye and good luck. Then Dudley approaches Harry (somewhat to Harry's alarm) and offers his hand. The two of them shake, and say goodbye with mutual respect (calling it affection would be a great overstatement). Finally, Petunia prepares to leave the room. She says goodbye, turns to walk out, then stops and looks back at Harry. She appears to be on the verge of speaking then turns away once more and walks out of the room. QUESTIONS Oh, the Dursleys *shakes head* Doddie who nods along with your shaking head.. 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other books? Doddie: It doesn't neccessarily speak volumes to their relationship as to lack of one...no sympathy or loss on any side..Although, I do think that Vernon's rages often left Harry with a fit of the giggles..but because someone that prejudiced and thinking they are the best and on top of the world alwasy make the most absurd statements and often behave in the most absurd fashion. 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? I don't believe Vernon is the chief disciplinarian...I think it was Petunia's reccomendations he put into effect. (something I wouldn't consider to be setting the tone)...and she did have a massive role in raising Dudders. I think Petunia was most jealous of Harry and didn't want Duddley to feel the same as she...Neither Vernon nor Petunia see Dudders as something other than a sprout of themselves...trying to live vicariously through him..(Petunia was Jealous and set out to make Harry jealous...Vernon..wanted to be the big shot yet never was to tried to mold Duldley in that mold...I loved it that Harry basically demolished both of their efforts by saving their lives. 3. Many of us expected a confrontation between Harry and Petunia in DH, but instead, Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us Petunia's back story in another context. I didn't expect a confrontation as much as an explanation...We only got an explanation from Snape's perspective unfortunately. I think if we had Petunia's explanation Harry may not have middled-named his kid Severus...LOL 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is there unfinished business between them? Petunia would have been all about "we" cannot be in "your world" and "your world" kept my sister from me..and YOUR WORLD was not good enough for me, therefore it was not good enough MY sister--who was MY sister well before she was YOUR mother..and how dare you stare at me with HER eye's all these years...her eyes were the only reason I managed find it within me to change all your diapers which you tortured me with because you a "great wizard" even at one magic'd the mess away when I ignored you...but always managed a mess when I did change you." and the end part of petunia's schpeel would have been, "and if I hadn't had to share my mothering between my beloved dudders and you, HE would have went to Hogwarts too...and he would have outshown you in every way!". Harry would say nothing his mouth would be hanging agape... 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? Well JKR said he saw himself exactly as he was...which IMHO would have been worse than all the first Hellraiser movie..(compeltely horrifiying--dunno about the sequels...but that first one left something truly memorable) 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? I was overjoyed that Duddley had recognized his mum and da definitely were wrong..this is a huge thing for a kid...when one cannot put one's parents on overly high ornate pedastals...This also forshadowed Harry's journey with his surrogate parents over the years. I suppose this is why little of lily is known...the shining star to so many.(Harry, Snape, Sluggy, James, Sirius, Lupin, and hell, even Petunia!) 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? Yes I do..because Dudley will want to keep in contact. 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship with his (Dudley's) parents? I always saw Dudley listening to the same radio show that Lee Jordan broadcast while visiting in the WW..I think Dudley went into the WW with an open mind. something his parents couldn't do..and his parents raised such a bully that we know at the least he'd bully them into what HE wanted to do...probably the one thing Dudders parents didn't pack was a book...and they ventured forth into a land with only the Wizarding Wireless. LOL I love to imagine Vernon getting the sweats as he was withdrawing from lack of the nightly news. Also, I see Petunia having secret cleaning lessons with Hestia, as to what can clean the best muggle methods vs. wizarding methods...not that they'd ever talk about it...they would just watch each other with smirks... 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral awareness of these characters by their reactions to encounters with dementors? Other characters have different kinds of reactions-think of Hagrid, for instance. How would someone like Mundungus Fletcher react to them? Of course you can...Dudley saw himself..Bella and Barty probably saw the demise of Voldy...In a sick and twisted kind of way Harry saw himself too..I would venture a guess that one can always learn from a dementor experience...but when someone see's themselves it's a more life changing experience. Look at Sirius...he probably had to relieve that same sad decision of make PP secret keeper over and over and over and over etc. again. Bella and Barty just pictured someone else's demise(Voldemort's) rather than their own or someone they cared for....Mundungus would experience being accosted by MOM officials over and over...then after his encounter with Harry he simply felt someone was choking him questioning him about his thefts. Hagrid would relive the death of his beloved magical creatrues, near death of madame Maxime, near death of his brother etc... Mad-eye--probably would feel a great deal like Harry during the MOM rescue ..a saving folks thing.. 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from this? He arrived and left on sirius' motor bike driven by Hagrid..(he came and left the same). DD chose well...(wow could DD's plan be this drawn out) 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would decisions be made without him? I think it was quite the democracy and I think Molly may well have been the reasoning behind DD's many decisions in OOP...and it wasn't all Molly but Sirius too...between both of them give and take...which left Harry wholy unsatisfied of course..Parents with common goals and different approaches are infuriating to a teen... 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* I did wonder. Vernon didn't loose his job..Deadalus took polyjuice potion and went to work for him daily in the middle at first he disslusioned himself and went to work with Vernon...As a result Vernon ended up owning the company...especially since Vernon wasn't watching tv etc...because Vernon could continue to work Dudders helped his father to enable him to pay his bills on-line. I was happy to see the back of them...but found great delight in my speculation as to how their experiences may have been in the WW... 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? At first I saw it as Harry feeling like he needed her...(he always did even when he didn't)..Harry did name her after the patron saint of orphans...she was a security blanket for him...she had to die...otherwise we would have spend the entire DH's worrying about Hedwig...we would have thought she could save him in some way...So yes it was meant that way. Doddiemoe, (no witty statement to make other than Petunia makes me want to vomit.she's too much like Snape for me--oops id I say that?.) From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Sep 21 09:21:07 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:21:07 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing References: Message-ID: <007301c7fc30$be566030$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 177274 From: "doddiemoemoe" CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 3, The Dursleys Departing 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it means? Is Vernon's behavior here consistent with that in the other books? Doddie: It doesn't necessarily speak volumes to their relationship as to lack of one...no sympathy or loss on any side..Although, I do think that Vernon's rages often left Harry with a fit of the giggles..but because someone that prejudiced and thinking they are the best and on top of the world always make the most absurd statements and often behave in the most absurd fashion. Shelley: I think it DOES speak volumes about their relationship, and Vernon's behavior is totally consistent with the other books. He's rather a pompous asshole, and even on his final parting with Harry, he can't even bare to say a proper goodbye, which is exactly what he's done before. Remember, when Mr. Weasley picked Harry up, he was astounded by Vernon's rude manners toward Harry, and here, so are Hestia and Dedalus. Because Vernon is nothing but an asshole, Harry should be totally happy to finally be rid of him. 2. Although Vernon is the chief disciplinarian at Privet Drive, clearly it is Petunia who sets the tone of the family's relationship with Harry. We learn in Book 1 that it is her rage and resentment towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. What do you think Petunia sees when she looks at Harry, and how does it make her feel? Doddie: I don't believe Vernon is the chief disciplinarian...I think it was Petunia's recommendations he put into effect. (something I wouldn't consider to be setting the tone)...and she did have a massive role in raising Dudders. I think Petunia was most jealous of Harry and didn't want Duddley to feel the same as she...Neither Vernon nor Petunia see Dudders as something other than a sprout of themselves...trying to live vicariously through him..(Petunia was Jealous and set out to make Harry jealous...Vernon..wanted to be the big shot yet never was to tried to mold Duldley in that mold...I loved it that Harry basically demolished both of their efforts by saving their lives. Shelley: I agree with Doddie- Vernon is not the chief disciplinarian. I think Petunia is so focused on hatred for her sister and for wizards in general that she ALLOWS Vernon (and Dudley) to bully and mistreat Harry. I think she deludes herself that she is a "proper aunt" to Harry, taking him in and raising him, and thinks she's doing everything right and good. By allowing Vernon to mistreat Harry, she kids herself that SHE is the loving one, all while denying outwardly that she is the one who distains Harry. She does it on purpose; contrasted to Vernon who is just an asshole, and that to me makes her the worst of the two. 3. Many of us expected a confrontation between Harry and Petunia in DH, but instead, Jo (as she usually does) surprised us by giving us Petunia's back story in another context. Doddie: I didn't expect a confrontation as much as an explanation...We only got an explanation from Snape's perspective unfortunately. I think if we had Petunia's explanation Harry may not have middled-named his kid Severus...LOL Shelley: Again, I agree with Doddie- I never expected a "confrontation", because that is just not Petunia's style. She'll talk about people behind their backs, but never to their faces, so she would never be the one to spill her feelings to Harry. First of all, to do that is to admit that she had feelings, that she was the jealous one, that she was frightened by that "awful boy", and that she did a really courageous act by writing to Dumbledore, only to be humiliated when she was turned down. No, Petunia's story came just as I expected it to- through the eyes of someone else, because Petunia would never really get around to having a real relationship with Harry. 4. What do you think she would have said to Harry had she chosen to speak at this time? Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other again? Is there unfinished business between them? Doddie: Petunia would have been all about "we" cannot be in "your world" and "your world" kept my sister from me..and YOUR WORLD was not good enough for me, therefore it was not good enough MY sister--who was MY sister well before she was YOUR mother..and how dare you stare at me with HER eye's all these years...her eyes were the only reason I managed find it within me to change all your diapers which you tortured me with because you a "great wizard" even at one magic'd the mess away when I ignored you...but always managed a mess when I did change you." and the end part of petunia's schpeel would have been, "and if I hadn't had to share my mothering between my beloved dudders and you, HE would have went to Hogwarts too...and he would have outshown you in every way!". Harry would say nothing his mouth would be hanging agape... Shelley: At first we disagree! Nah, if Petunia had spoken at all, it would have been a short, snide remark. It would have been something like: "Well, get on with it, you and your freaks." 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans wondered what experiences Dudley relived. From Harry's point of view, Dudley had never had a moment of fear, doubt or sadness in his entire life. But something life-changing happened to Dudley during that encounter, as we see in DH. What do you think Dudley saw, and how did it change him? Doddie: Well JKR said he saw himself exactly as he was...which IMHO would have been worse than all the first Hellraiser movie..(completely horrifying--dunno about the sequels...but that first one left something truly memorable) Shelley: I kind of wonder if Dudley had all the "things" taken from him, because that's what seemed to make him happy- tv, his bike, his toys, and if he was left with "nothing", because he never really developed a relationship with anyone. I don't think he "relived" anything as much as experience for the first time that he would be utterly and truly ALONE, because of that lack of relationships. And so, what changed is Dudley's sudden recognition that yes, people do matter, more than things or temporary pleasures. 6. What was your reaction on reading Dudley's unexpected defense of Harry? Doddie: I was overjoyed that Duddley had recognized his mum and da definitely were wrong..this is a huge thing for a kid...when one cannot put one's parents on overly high ornate pedastals...This also foreshadowed Harry's journey with his surrogate parents over the years. I suppose this is why little of lily is known...the shining star to so many.(Harry, Snape, Sluggy, James, Sirius, Lupin, and hell, even Petunia!) Shelley: I was incredibly sad!!! Here, we see Dudley growing up to be someone other than his asshole father, and it's the last time we will ever see him. I was hoping for some more time, to see more of this new Dudley. 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? Doddie: Yes I do..because Dudley will want to keep in contact. Shelley: I would hope so too, because Dudley doesn't have much of a good role model in his mom and dad, now does he? Harry is about the only person who would be really honest with him, and I think Dudley would need that and want to spend more time with Harry so that he could learn to be a better person from him. 8. How would Dudley's worries about Harry affect his relationship with his (Dudley's) parents? Doddie: I always saw Dudley listening to the same radio show that Lee Jordan broadcast while visiting in the WW..I think Dudley went into the WW with an open mind. something his parents couldn't do..and his parents raised such a bully that we know at the least he'd bully them into what HE wanted to do...probably the one thing Dudders parents didn't pack was a book...and they ventured forth into a land with only the Wizarding Wireless. LOL I love to imagine Vernon getting the sweats as he was withdrawing from lack of the nightly news. Also, I see Petunia having secret cleaning lessons with Hestia, as to what can clean the best muggle methods vs. wizarding methods...not that they'd ever talk about it...they would just watch each other with smirks... Shelley: No, I don't think it will have any affect at all, because I think either he won't share them (his fears and concerns for Harry) with his parents, or his parents won't allow him to talk about Harry. He could ask about Harry from the other wizards, but that's the only way that I see it happening, when his parents aren't around or aren't paying attention that he's asking the wizards for answers. Vernon and Petunia, I could see leading very dysfunctional, almost skitafrentic lives- living with magic and magic people, and yet trying to pretend so hard that it doesn't exist, and they are just on a pleasant holiday. I don't see them even allowing the wizards to talk about Harry in their presence, as that would remind them that he is their nephew, and that he is in danger. 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? Think of the way he first came to the Dursleys' home in PS and the way he left in DH. Think also of the ways he leaves and returns in each book. What can we learn about Harry from this? Doddie: He arrived and left on sirius' motor bike driven by Hagrid..(he came and left the same). DD chose well...(wow could DD's plan be this drawn out) Shelley: He came with the wizards, he left with the wizards. He never belonged in the Muggle world to begin with. The other partings of that house were sad, because he knew that he was bound to that house, in that he had to return there, and there was no happiness for him in that house. This parting was a contrast, in that he was severing a chain that bound him to the Muggle world, and for once, he would be free to be who he was- a wizard. 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would decisions be made without him? Doddie: I think it was quite the democracy and I think Molly may well have been the reasoning behind DD's many decisions in OOP...and it wasn't all Molly but Sirius too...between both of them give and take...which left Harry wholy unsatisfied of course..Parents with common goals and different approaches are infuriating to a teen... Shelley: I think that just like with the resistance movement at Hogwarts, when one leader leaves, another one rises to take his or her place. Neville took Ginny's place, and I think someone like Kingsley would have taken Dumbledore's. The new leader had to be someone whom they all respected, and so I can't see it being a democracy because they would be all arguing over their own agendas. I don't think the Order could ever be a democracy, because there is strength in acting upon the wishes of a great and trusted leader, but if you are doing your own thing, you constantly doubt whether you are doing the right thing. So much of the bravery of the Order members came from their trust in Dumbledore, and so I think they would need that same dependency on a new leader to keep reassuring them and leading them on to brave action. 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* Doddie: I did wonder. Vernon didn't loose his job..Deadalus took polyjuice potion and went to work for him daily in the middle at first he disslusioned himself and went to work with Vernon...As a result Vernon ended up owning the company...especially since Vernon wasn't watching tv etc...because Vernon could continue to work Dudders helped his father to enable him to pay his bills on-line. I was happy to see the back of them...but found great delight in my speculation as to how their experiences may have been in the WW... Shelley: I wondered about the HOUSE more than I did the Dursleys, LOL. I wondered if it got robbed, was burnt down, if the war spilled over into ruining any residential areas to destroy it. I thought, just like with Hermione's parents, that the Dursleys would just start a new life over somewhere else. I never gave them (except for Dudley growing up to be a real man, and if he kept in touch with Harry) a second thought. 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next chapter? Was it meant that way? Doddie: At first I saw it as Harry feeling like he needed her...(he always did even when he didn't)..Harry did name her after the patron saint of orphans...she was a security blanket for him...she had to die...otherwise we would have spend the entire DH's worrying about Hedwig...we would have thought she could save him in some way...So yes it was meant that way. Shelley: I felt totally sick that Hedwig's final moments were of being trapped in a cage. I would have preferred that she was flying free before that, or off with another family. (She could have been at Ron's, after delivering a message and told to stay there until he arrived, and she could have stayed there the entire year he was camping, and we wouldn't have worried about her, but knew that they would be reunited once again. She didn't have to die!!!) I was also sick that his final moments with Hedwig weren't something I could look back on and smile upon. Doddiemoe, (no witty statement to make other than Petunia makes me want to vomit.she's too much like Snape for me--oops id I say that?.) Shelley: Ooh, Snape and Petunia. An interesting couple! From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Sep 21 13:41:39 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:41:39 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177275 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: Potioncat: > On a different level, JKR managed to pull off the anticipated events in > surprising ways. Nothing was quite as anyone wanted LOLLIPOPS wasn't a > romance but a friendship. Harry did die, only he didn't. Geoff: That's a contradiction in terms. Harry didn't die. Full stop. From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 21 14:15:36 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:15:36 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177276 > Geoff: > That's a contradiction in terms. > > Harry didn't die. Full stop. > > Potioncat: All the talk before DH about Harry's potential death made me uncomfortable. JKR said she enjoyed it, but she had the advantage of knowing the real outcome. I couldn't decide if the news about an amusement park was a guarantee of Harry's living, or if a cunning JKR signed the contract before "they" could find out Harry didn't survive. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 21 14:20:06 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:20:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177277 Carol: > > > But Harry *isn't* handsome. > > > Betsy Hp: > > > Then why are all those girls falling all over him in HBP? Why does > > Cho fancy him? Why does Hermione take the time to explain to Harry > > that he is actually attractive to the opposite sex? > > > It's very interesting that us readers imagine the same character so > differently! I really think there is no point in arguing here, > because, if you had a certain image in your head for a few years, no > argument will change it, I guess :-). I personally never in my life > imagined Harry as handsome. Magpie: I think this probably is subjective--especially since we'll never really see him. What is fact is that whether he's classically handsome or not, he's certainly played as very attractive. He's been chased by various girls since he was 11 and by HBP his attractiveness has become comical with him being literally chased pretty much the way Cedric was. So he's certainly not living the life of an unattractive person. In fact, I would say "an ordinary boy with beautiful eyes" as you described him sounds like many women's idea of a dreamboat--far better than somebody who looks like a fashion model. -m From coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in Fri Sep 21 14:20:00 2007 From: coolnim_11 at yahoo.co.in (coolnim_11) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:20:00 -0000 Subject: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents In-Reply-To: <5d7223330709191730l9102442m8f2c1244b403a98d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177278 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meann ortiz" wrote: > > On 9/20/07, Hagrid wrote: > > aussie: > > Did James' parents go to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle? > > How likely is that? > > > Meann: > Tom Riddle was born 31 Dec.1926 . He was at Hogwarts in 1938. > > Lily, James, and their contemporaries, were born around 1960 so they would've entered Hogwarts in 1971. That's > a 33-year difference. =) > > Tom's contemporaries at Hogwarts were Hagrid, Moaning Myrtle, Prof. > McGonagall, and the future Death Eaters Avery and Rodolphus > Lestrange. Nimisha: I agree that there is a lot of difference between James's and Tom's attending Hogwarts. But,the other Death Eaters like Every were almost the same age as Sirius. So,I think that it is possible that they attended school at the same time. But, they could have missed each other by one or two years. From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 15:16:33 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Kathryn Lambert) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:16:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <725540.76987.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177279 coolnim_11 wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meann ortiz" wrote: > > On 9/20/07, Hagrid wrote: > > aussie: > > Did James' parents go to Hogwarts at the same time as Tom Riddle? > > How likely is that? > > > Meann: > Tom Riddle was born 31 Dec.1926 . He was at Hogwarts in 1938. > > Lily, James, and their contemporaries, were born around 1960 so they would've entered Hogwarts in 1971. That's > a 33-year difference. =) > > Tom's contemporaries at Hogwarts were Hagrid, Moaning Myrtle, Prof. > McGonagall, and the future Death Eaters Avery and Rodolphus > Lestrange. Nimisha: I agree that there is a lot of difference between James's and Tom's attending Hogwarts. But,the other Death Eaters like Every were almost the same age as Sirius. So,I think that it is possible that they attended school at the same time. But, they could have missed each other by one or two years. ***Katie: No, Tom Riddle is MUCH older than any of the kids' parents and contemporaries. I think that's been established pretty solidly. He couldn't be Hagrid's contemporary AND Sirius and James' contemporary. That's not possible. Avery, Nott, and many other DE's are not named by first names. It's quite possible that the frist generation of DE's passed along the "membership" to their sons and daughters, much as Lucius did with Draco. Thus, there would be two or three generations of Notts, leStranges, Averys... But Riddle is definitely much, much older than Sirius, James, Lupin, and Snape. Katie --------------------------------- Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 21 15:20:08 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:20:08 -0000 Subject: Tom at Hogwarts with James' Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177280 > Nimisha: > I agree that there is a lot of difference between James's and Tom's > attending Hogwarts. But,the other Death Eaters like Every were almost > the same age as Sirius. So,I think that it is possible that they > attended school at the same time. But, they could have missed each > other by one or two years. Potioncat: Erm...actually, there's been a mistake. The same one that Sirius and Severus make. The original question in the first post asked if James's parents could have been at Hogwarts with Tom Riddle. Subsequent answers have replied as if the question was "could Harry's parents have been at Hogwarts with Tom Riddle?" Easy mistake to make, you see. James and Harry look so much alike. ;-) Back to Nimisha's comment---in some cases we have father/son DEs. So that the father was a contemporary of Tom's while the son was a Housemate of Severus's; or in Nott's case, the father was Tom's contemporary while the son was Draco's. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 17:47:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:47:03 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177281 Magpie: > I think this [Harry's physical attractiveness] probably is subjective--especially since we'll never really see him. What is fact is that whether he's classically handsome or not, he's certainly played as very attractive. He's been chased by various girls since he was 11 and by HBP his attractiveness has become comical with him being literally chased pretty much the way Cedric was. So he's certainly not living the > life of an unattractive person. In fact, I would say "an ordinary > boy with beautiful eyes" as you described him sounds like many > women's idea of a dreamboat--far better than somebody who looks like > a fashion model. > Carol responds: "Various girls since he was eleven"? I count Ginny as one girl. In PoA, when he's thirteen, Cho (a fellow Seeker) starts to like him, with their mutual attraction developing in Gof and OoP, but that still makes only two girls. In GoF, girls are temporarily attracted to Harry as a TWT champion--the ones who aren't wearing "Support Cedric Diggory" badges want to go to the Yule Ball with him--but once the ball is over, things return to normal. In OoP, only Ginny and Cho are attracted to him (and many people, even Gryffindors, think he's a lying attention seeker). In HBP, after the MoM expedition (when everyone knows that Voldemort is back), Harry has a few new fans of the type who follow the unattractive but famous Viktor Krum around, chief among them Romilda Vane, and the desire to be escorted by Harry to Slughorn's party tempts some of them to talk about dosing him with love potion, but only Romilda actually attempts it. There's no indication that she thinks Harry is handsome; he's just a fellow Gryffindor who happens to be famous. Not so different from Colin Creevey following him around with a camera in CoS except that she's a girl who wants a famous date. (She does retain her crush or whatever it is to the extent of being displeased when Harry kisses Ginny, but otherwise her attention to Harry falls off after Slughorn's party, and we hear no more about girls following Harry around because there's no point in doing so, no social event at which they could arouse the envy of other girls by being the Chosen One's date.) During the few (make that two) times when the girls are following Harry around (a la handsome Cedric and famous Viktor), there's a social event at stake *and* Harry is experiencing a surge of popularity based on something that Harry has *done*. As for "beautiful eyes," that phrase is never used in the books, either by the narrator or by any character. They're bright green ("as green as a pickled toad") and we're told twice, IIRC, that they're almond-shaped, but they're also covered by glasses, and, except for Ginny, the only people who notice them are former friends or acquaintances of Harry's parents, almost all of whom see Harry (to some degree) as James with Lily's eyes. Carol, who would like to see *one* piece of evidence that the reaction of the girls (who, except for Cho and Ginny) are extremely fickle in their attraction to Harry, is in any way based on looks From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 17:51:12 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 17:51:12 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177282 > >>Mus: > > > > Others get sorted. Harry gets chosen. > > And what's the opposite of being "chosen" in this charming > > magical world? Being put in Slytherin. > >>lizzyben: > And that's what it always comes back to, doesn't it? There were > these little hints all along that could be ignored until the Big > Finale confirmed JKR's world-view. I keep forgetting that none of > this matters anymore - it doesn't matter who starts the fights or > who over-reacts or who is BMOC. Harry is the saved, Draco is the > damned. Harry is the Elect, Snape is the reprobate. Harry wins > because he's got God on his side. What's left to debate? Betsy Hp: You're absolutely correct of course. And while I do quite like Draco and quite dislike Harry (especially by series end) I recognize that I'm completely subverting the text in having that opinion. So why have I bothered with this argument... I think because I see it as a bit disingenuous to say Harry's less popular than Draco and also an everyman. Though it's more JKR who's being disingenuous than anyone making that particular argument. Because while I really do think the text does not support average, everday, barely a blip on the radar of his fellow students, Harry, I do see that JKR is attempting (as she does throughout the series) to have her cake and eat it too. >From the moment Harry entered the magical world he was a superstar that far outshone the Malfoy family name. But JKR has set Draco up to fulfill a certain trope. So the superstar is made a nerd by virtue of his glasses, and the underdog is made the BMOC by virtue of his blond hair and poncy accent. Which means, I suppose, that per JKR Draco is the BMOC and totally popular with everyone and would win every single quidditch match and poor Harry just has to struggle to get by. Oh, but Harry always, always, wins and no one really likes Draco at all. > >>lizzyben: > I really love Magpie's post about "angelic concern" AND "devilish > fun" because I'm now seeing it all over the narrative. Harry > is "Everykid" AND "The Chosen One"/Jesus, AND a super-celebrity > sports star. He's the "underdog" AND he always wins! He's normal- > looking AND he has girls chasing him. He's nice AND he gets > payback! He hates Dark Arts AND he uses some cool hexes on the bad > guys! And the ultimate expression of this: HP is a "revenge > fantasy" AND a "Christian allegory". Neat. Betsy Hp: Total agreement. There's also the bit about treating Muggles fairly and the only people we actively *see* baiting Muggles are our heroes. (The DeathEaters do it too, of course. But they're much more anonymous.) > >>Amy: > > I don't know if it's been discussed before, but even given the heavy > connotations of Slytherin = the damned in the final book, I'm hard > pressed to believe that anyone reading this series will not see a > forgiven, if not "redeemed" Draco in DH. The narrative was extremely > sympathetic to him. I'd say one of the major anvils in DH was that > Draco didn't want to be a Death Eater, in case no one got that from > HBP. I don't know exactly who said it, but Draco has a normal > family, wife and kid, in the epilogue, and that if anything > indicated that he'd been "redeemed" in JKR's world. Betsy Hp: I'll agree that as per the way JKR views things, Draco is "redeemed" just as I think she'd label Snape "redeemed" too. I personally don't agree, but I think it's because I have a very different definition of redemption than JKR does. At issue for me is my utter repulsion at a philosophy that labels some people as "Elect" and others as "Not-Elect". So while Draco and Snape both acknowledge that as Slytherins they are lesser than and evil, and Snape is even given the opportunity to "convert" (Dumbledore's 'sort too early' comment), they are still amongst the damned. They have dirty blood. And while it's "diluted" now (whatever the hell that means), it's still not Gryffindor pure. IMO, that's not redemption at all. It's a half-life. But in JKR's world (as far as I've been able to glean) it's the best a Slytherin can ever hope for. Betsy Hp (as per Harry's looks -- what Magpie said ) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 21 18:15:37 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:15:37 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177283 > Magpie: > > I think this [Harry's physical attractiveness] probably is > subjective--especially since we'll never really see him. What is fact > is that whether he's classically handsome or not, he's certainly > played as very attractive. He's been chased by various girls since he > was 11 and by HBP his attractiveness has become comical with him being > literally chased pretty much the way Cedric was. So he's certainly not > living the > > life of an unattractive person. In fact, I would say "an ordinary > > boy with beautiful eyes" as you described him sounds like many > > women's idea of a dreamboat--far better than somebody who looks like > > a fashion model. > Carol responds: > > "Various girls since he was eleven"? I count Ginny as one girl. In > PoA, when he's thirteen, Cho (a fellow Seeker) starts to like him, > with their mutual attraction developing in Gof and OoP, but that still > makes only two girls. In GoF, girls are temporarily attracted to Harry > as a TWT champion--the ones who aren't wearing "Support Cedric > Diggory" badges want to go to the Yule Ball with him--but once the > ball is over, things return to normal. In OoP, only Ginny and Cho are > attracted to him (and many people, even Gryffindors, think he's a > lying attention seeker). In HBP, after the MoM expedition (when > everyone knows that Voldemort is back), Harry has a few new fans of > the type who follow the unattractive but famous Viktor Krum around, > chief among them Romilda Vane, and the desire to be escorted by Harry > to Slughorn's party tempts some of them to talk about dosing him with > love potion, but only Romilda actually attempts it. Magpie: I said "since 11" because the fact is within Harry's story there's a girl who's hankering to get a look at him in the very first book. He's never completely without that within canon. I was not trying to suggest that Harry is so Drop Dead Gorgeous that girls are always following him throughout canon--that was even the point of what I said, not that Harry was conventionally the most handsome but that Harry lived the life of someone who was attractive (he can attract by more than just his bone structure, for instance). I was just showing that in fact as a character Harry spends all of canon drawing the eye, usually in an attractive way--as opposed to, say, Ron Weasley who is far more of an everyboy in that respect. Your qualifications for all of the times people are attracted to Harry can be true, but still what's the overview of Harry and girls? He's not got a problem in the area of attractiveness. The only times dating is an issue in canon Harry never has reason to worry about his looks. Whatever their reason, girls *are* dying to go to dances and parties with them whenever that comes up. Every time he has to date someone in canon--except for when he asks Luna intentionally wanting to subvert the idea of dating--he's going with exceptionally attractive girls. The prettiest girls of each year. Ginny, of course, is an exceptional prize, the girl all the other boys want but who wants Harry (and did before she met him). You are dismissing people following him around for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that people are following him around. You say "only one girl" actually attempts a love potion-- but how many people have anyone attempt to love potion them at all? You compare him to Viktor Krum, but Krum also has his pick of women whether or not he's attractive--and Krum, too, by the wedding seems to see himself as attractive to women. He may still not see himself as handsome, but he's attractive. I mean, it just seems like having it both ways to say that yeah, maybe there are girls running after Harry and trying to get him under the mistletoe (iirc), or dosing him with Love Potion, or trying out for his Quidditch Team even if they're not in his house, or writing angry letters to the girl they think dumped him...but his features don't conform to movie star handsome so he can't be considered advantaged in this area. People have tried to do all these things to date him and be around him--he's attractive for whatever reason. Also his parents were attractive. James ruffles his hair when girls are watching and Lily's the Ginny of her generation. Harry isn't Sirius who's primarily striking in terms of looks, but he's also not got any trouble in that department that I can see. Adolescence seems mostly kind to him--he's skinny as a kid and looks pinched when he's going through his growthy spurt. That sounds fine to me. However, in Harry's case to this is added lots of other stuff that make him a rock star. Rock stars are often attractive whether or not one finds them handsome. So whether Harry would win an anonymous beauty contest competing against Brad Pitt or not he's dealt with being attractive in his life, not unattractive. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 18:36:03 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 18:36:03 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177284 > Betsy Hp: > You're absolutely correct of course. And while I do quite like Draco > and quite dislike Harry (especially by series end) I recognize that > I'm completely subverting the text in having that opinion. > > So why have I bothered with this argument... I think because I see > it as a bit disingenuous to say Harry's less popular than Draco and > also an everyman. Though it's more JKR who's being disingenuous than > anyone making that particular argument. Alla: Well, thank you, LOL that you agreed to not consider my argument to be disingenuous. Since I most certainly among those making it. I usually think of everybody's argument as not disingenious by default. Betsy Hp: Because while I really do > think the text does not support average, everday, barely a blip on > the radar of his fellow students, Harry, I do see that JKR is > attempting (as she does throughout the series) to have her cake and > eat it too. > Alla: I think she just makes the cake, personally and find her to be a very good baker, LOL. Betsy Hp: > From the moment Harry entered the magical world he was a superstar > that far outshone the Malfoy family name. But JKR has set Draco up > to fulfill a certain trope. So the superstar is made a nerd by > virtue of his glasses, and the underdog is made the BMOC by virtue of > his blond hair and poncy accent. Alla: You start from establishing something as a fact and proceed to build your argument on the premise that does not work for everybody, but since you say it as a fact, it looks like the other reading is somehow less supported by the text. In this paragraph you also switch from Harry's position in Hogwarts in comparison to Draco to Harry's position in the WW as in comparison to Draco. Chosen one is surely well known in WW, although Malfoy's name seems pretty well known to me to - Board of Governors and all that. Oh, and Harry not being in WW for eleven years also IMO helps equal the stakes. So, if we are back to Hogwarts, I will just say what Amy said for the most part, I especially liked that popularity does not equal that other word. But specifically, NO so called superstar is not made a nerd by the virtue of his glasses IMO, he is made a nerd ( and being a well known person at the same time) by growing apart from this world, by knowing nothing about his heritage and has to fit in the whole new world and of course by dealing with something that school has no problem ostracising him for from time to time. And so called "underdog" - because to me he is no underdog in any way shape or form is not made BMOC by virtue of his hair and accent. He is made one by what he does and what he stands for in my view. Betsy Hp: Which means, I suppose, that per > JKR Draco is the BMOC and totally popular with everyone and would win > every single quidditch match and poor Harry just has to struggle to > get by. Oh, but Harry always, always, wins and no one really likes > Draco at all. Alla: Nobody likes Draco at all? Seems like he has a plenty of Slytherin friends to me. And the funny thing is, I really do believe JKR when she writes that, I really do believe her that in every new struggle with Draco Harry has to fight and often for his life to win. With me she succeeded brilliantly. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 19:00:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:00:35 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177285 Carol earlier: > Elsewhere in this thread, someone asked what compels Draco to act as he does (other than JKR's plot needs). IOW, considering Draco as a character who exists in the pages of the books independent of JKR's intentions (which may or may not have been realized) or her view of him (which may or may not be shared by any given reader), what makes him act as he does? > > It seems to me that Draco, unlike Theo Nott (a fellow Slytherin in a similar position), cares what people think. He wants to be a leader. He likes attention and wants to be admired, if only by his fellow Slytherins. He seems to be jealous of Harry, who receives attention from the whole WW without seeking it and, at first, without having done anything more than survive an AK through no skill or power or effort of his own. Draco resents Harry's choice of friends (a "Mudblood" and a "blood-traitor") and his rejection of Draco's mentorship ("I can help you there," meaning I can help you make connections with the "right" people--Draco at eleven seems to be a budding Slughorn except that he fails to influence or impress Harry). > > > > So what motivates Draco to continually oppose or confront Harry and his friends? I think it's a combination of jealousy, resentment, interhouse rivalry, belief in the "principles" he's learned from his parents, overconfidence in his own abilities and (in the early books) his father's influence. The Dark Lord's resurrection makes him certain that he's on the winning side. His father's arrest gives him the desire for revenge (and, having triumphed over Harry in the Hogwarts Express, he thinks he can move on to bigger enemies). I think that confrontation, mostly through taunts but occasionally through actions is a compulsion for Draco, a form of attention-seeking that he simply can't resist, any more than Hermione can resist raising her hand and giving the right answer to a question. > > Anyway, I don't think it's masochism that keeps Draco coming back for more. I think it's a perverse sense of the rightness of his cause, at least in the sense of "might makes right," the right side being the winning side, the side in power. But he also resents Harry for receiving so much attention, and if he can't eliminate that attention, he can at least make sure that it's directed against Harry ("Support Cedric Diggory") or against his friends ("Weasley Is Our King"). Carol again: I apologize for quoting my own post, but the only response I received was an offlist message pointing out that I hadn't really supported my position with canon. I guess my friend wanted a book-length post . If he or anyone else wants canon for my position, I can provide it, but I'm not really arguing here. What I'm really trying to do is to look at Draco without the distortion of Harry's perspective, which is both limited and prejudiced against him. I am emphatically *not* trying to say that Draco is really a nice, misunderstood little boy. I'm trying to look at what motivates him and how he develops. Does anyone think, for example, that Draco in the early books craves the attention that Harry receives, even possibly viewing it as his by right as both a Malfoy and a Black? Our glimpse of Prefect Lucius in "the Prince's Tale" may give us an indication of the position that Draco wanted (in Slytherin, at least). There's also a reference somewhere to Draco "holding court" at the Slytherin table, which reminds me of bit of Aunt Bellatrix's haughty arrogance in the Pensieve trial scene (GoF) and Narcissa's equal haughtiness in chapters other than "Spinner's End" (HBP) and "The Flaw in the Plan" (DH). Instead of generalizing about Slytherins in general as "the damned," I'd like to see us analyzing their motivation and development to the extent that that's possible. IOW, we are presented with information (dialogue and actions) that the narrator, reflecting Harry's pov, interprets in a particular way. But if we eliminate the narrator's commentary (as opposed to straight reporting of words and actions) and eh often biased or mistaken commentary of other characters), we can, as intelligent readers, interpret motivations for ourselves and see the difference in the character's attitude and behavior from point A (for example, Draco's hope in CoS that Slytherin's monster kills the "Mudblood" Granger) to point B (for example, his apparent reluctance to identify HRH and turn them in to Voldemort). I had always thought that Draco was merely using his thuggish cronies as bodyguards and "backup" and that he didn't really care about them, but his words and actions in the RoR in DH seem to show real affection for both of them, holding the unconscious Goyle and making sure he's safe and mourning the dead Crabbe even though Crabbe has rejected his control and turned to the Dark side to an extent that Draco himself apparently has not, given that he casts no curses and tries to block or thwart Crabbe's. It's not just a matter of letting the Dark Lord kill Harry himself. He seems not to want Crabbe to torture Harry, either. (His reaction to Crabbe's attempt to kill Hermione is unclear since he loses his wand in the aftermath and says nothing about her or Ron; his concern seems to be for Harry. But he also pulls Crabbe out of the way of a Stunning spell, and, of course, makes sure that Goyle is saved along with himself.) Also, oddly, he expresses concern for "that diadem thing" that Harry is trying to retrieve, afraid that Crabbe will destroy it with one of his spells (DH Am. ed. 629). To me, this scene represents Draco's mixed loyalties--trying to help Harry but at the same time still caring about his friends, who have to differing degrees gone over to the Dark side. If he's really trying to turn Harry over to LV (as Pansy suggested), it's odd that he doesn't cast a spell himself and repeatedly tells Crabbe to stop or grabs his arm. He could have encouraged the Crucio or hit Harry or his friends with a Stunning Spell or Expelliarmus if that were really his goal. Perhaps what we're supposed to see in this scene is Harry's mercy and gallantry (in contrast to Ron's reluctance to save Draco and Goyle and his harsh reaction to Crabbe's death), but we also see a Draco who (like his father) has lost his authority but (unlike his father) is reluctant to hurt Harry and shows genuine concern for someone other than himself. (Yes, Lucius loves his son, but he seems to value his own skin above all else.) Carol, hoping that someone will reply this time, whether to agree or disagree doesn't matter From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 19:18:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:18:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177286 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > I think this [Harry's physical attractiveness] probably is > > subjective--especially since we'll never really see him. What is > fact > > is that whether he's classically handsome or not, he's certainly > > played as very attractive. He's been chased by various girls since > he > > was 11 and by HBP his attractiveness has become comical with him > being > > literally chased pretty much the way Cedric was. So he's certainly > not > > living the > > > life of an unattractive person. In fact, I would say "an > ordinary > > > boy with beautiful eyes" as you described him sounds like many > > > women's idea of a dreamboat--far better than somebody who looks > like > > > a fashion model. > > > > Carol responds: > > > > "Various girls since he was eleven"? I count Ginny as one girl. In > > PoA, when he's thirteen, Cho (a fellow Seeker) starts to like him, > > with their mutual attraction developing in Gof and OoP, but that > still > > makes only two girls. In GoF, girls are temporarily attracted to > Harry > > as a TWT champion--the ones who aren't wearing "Support Cedric > > Diggory" badges want to go to the Yule Ball with him--but once the > > ball is over, things return to normal. In OoP, only Ginny and Cho > are > > attracted to him (and many people, even Gryffindors, think he's a > > lying attention seeker). > In HBP, after the MoM expedition (when > > everyone knows that Voldemort is back), Harry has a few new fans of > > the type who follow the unattractive but famous Viktor Krum around, > > chief among them Romilda Vane, and the desire to be escorted by > Harry > > to Slughorn's party tempts some of them to talk about dosing him > with > > love potion, but only Romilda actually attempts it. > > Magpie: > I said "since 11" because the fact is within Harry's story there's a > girl who's hankering to get a look at him in the very first book. > He's never completely without that within canon. I was not trying to > suggest that Harry is so Drop Dead Gorgeous that girls are always > following him throughout canon--that was even the point of what I > said, not that Harry was conventionally the most handsome but that > Harry lived the life of someone who was attractive (he can attract > by more than just his bone structure, for instance). > > I was just showing that in fact as a character Harry spends all of > canon drawing the eye, usually in an attractive way--as opposed to, > say, Ron Weasley who is far more of an everyboy in that respect. > Your qualifications for all of the times people are attracted to > Harry can be true, but still what's the overview of Harry and girls? > He's not got a problem in the area of attractiveness. The only times > dating is an issue in canon Harry never has reason to worry about > his looks. Whatever their reason, girls *are* dying to go to dances > and parties with them whenever that comes up. Every time he has to > date someone in canon--except for when he asks Luna intentionally > wanting to subvert the idea of dating--he's going with exceptionally > attractive girls. The prettiest girls of each year. Ginny, of > course, is an exceptional prize, the girl all the other boys want > but who wants Harry (and did before she met him). > > You are dismissing people following him around for the wrong > reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that people are following > him around. You say "only one girl" actually attempts a love potion-- > but how many people have anyone attempt to love potion them at all? > You compare him to Viktor Krum, but Krum also has his pick of women > whether or not he's attractive--and Krum, too, by the wedding seems > to see himself as attractive to women. He may still not see himself > as handsome, but he's attractive. > > I mean, it just seems like having it both ways to say that yeah, > maybe there are girls running after Harry and trying to get him > under the mistletoe (iirc), or dosing him with Love Potion, or > trying out for his Quidditch Team even if they're not in his house, > or writing angry letters to the girl they think dumped him...but his > features don't conform to movie star handsome so he can't be > considered advantaged in this area. > > People have tried to do all these things to date him and be around > him--he's attractive for whatever reason. Also his parents were > attractive. James ruffles his hair when girls are watching and > Lily's the Ginny of her generation. Harry isn't Sirius who's > primarily striking in terms of looks, but he's also not got any > trouble in that department that I can see. Adolescence seems mostly > kind to him--he's skinny as a kid and looks pinched when he's going > through his growthy spurt. That sounds fine to me. However, in > Harry's case to this is added lots of other stuff that make him a > rock star. Rock stars are often attractive whether or not one finds > them handsome. So whether Harry would win an anonymous beauty > contest competing against Brad Pitt or not he's dealt with being > attractive in his life, not unattractive. > > -m > Carol responds: But my point is, Harry's (occasional) attractiveness to girls has little to do with his looks (which, except for the scar that draws all eyes, are unexceptional) and everything to do with who he is (the Boy Who Lived, the Chosen One) and what he has done (survived an AK, fought dragons, confronted DEs and LV himself and lived to tell the tale). Perhaps we should substitute "popularity" for "attractiveness" since Harry attracts girls other than Ginny and Cho only during times of popularity for some accomplishment and never during times when he's suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin or a lying attention seeker. Where are the girls (other than Ginny and his *friend* Hermione( in books 1-3? Cho is the only girl (other than Ginny, who has receded nto the background) in OoP. HBP is another matter, but only or chiefly because Voldemort is back and Harry's claim to have fought him is now believed. Betsy Hp said he was handsome and that his looks attracted the girls. I'm saying (for the last time, I hope) that what attracts the girls, starting with Ginny but including Cho and Romilda Vane and a dozen or so unnamed others at only two periods in seven books, is his fame and perhaps, as with James (who wants to look "windswept" but can't make himself as handsome as Sirius even if he puts on lipstick and mascara), his athletic ability. It's exactly the same as with Viktor Krum, a famous athlete who attracts girls but is not *physically* attractive. Marry him and you're likely to have hawk-nosed, duck-footed kids who, with luck, will be exceptional Quidditch players. Carol, noting that Parvati, Harry's date for the Yule Ball, ends up dancing with a Beauxbatons boy and never gives Harry as date or boyfriend another thought From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 19:48:22 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:48:22 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177287 > Betsy Hp: > So while Draco and Snape both acknowledge that as Slytherins they are > lesser than and evil, and Snape is even given the opportunity > to "convert" (Dumbledore's 'sort too early' comment), they are still > amongst the damned. They have dirty blood. And while it's "diluted" > now (whatever the hell that means), it's still not Gryffindor pure. zgirnius: I do not recall either of the characters named acknowledging any such thing. I don't recall Draco ever in any way acknowledging himself is 'lesser than' *or* 'evil'. When did this take place? Snape, on the other hand, implicitly acknowledges the evil of his youthful choices in that he makes different ones later, and regrets the evil ones, but this has, in the text, everything to do with what Snape has done (endanger Lily by reporting the prophecy) and nothing to do with what House he was in as a schoolboy. As far as acknowledging that he is 'lesser than'...lesser than who? I do not recall his acknowledging himself to be 'lesser than' anyone, humility does not seem a prominent character trait of Severus Snape, to me anyway. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 21 20:14:22 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:14:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177288 > Carol responds: > > But my point is, Harry's (occasional) attractiveness to girls has > little to do with his looks (which, except for the scar that draws all > eyes, are unexceptional) and everything to do with who he is (the Boy > Who Lived, the Chosen One) and what he has done (survived an AK, > fought dragons, confronted DEs and LV himself and lived to tell the > tale). Perhaps we should substitute "popularity" for "attractiveness" > since Harry attracts girls other than Ginny and Cho only during times > of popularity for some accomplishment and never during times when he's > suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin or a lying attention seeker. Magpie: Right, but that's also why I thought I was brushing that aside in my post--whether or not we as readers picture him as handsome or not is subjective, since we'll never see him. (Though the description of him as "ordinary looking but with beautiful eyes" does seem to me to add up to something far dreamier than "chiseled features like a super model.") He's not ugly, certainly, and he's not good-looking to the point where that's something we'd really list as a defining trait. I didn't think Betsy was trying to put him on Sirius' level to begin with, but to just say that to her he seemed to come across as also good-looking--this not an area in which he struggles. But my point was that whatever he looks like, it's not a character trait of his to have problems lookswise and in fact when it comes to dating he is advantaged. He doesn't always have hoards of girls after him (sometimes he does), but he is on the A-list. I doubt there's a single boy in Harry's year who isn't more sought-after than he is. Not because he's just so prettily handsome--which I honestly don't think JKR would admire anyway and neither would we. But I do think she thinks he's a guy girls should recognize as the dishiest in the class. Not because of his looks, but not in spite of them either. The girls who like him do like him physically, even if they weren't drawn to him because he had a pretty face only. Romilda, for instance, may be impressed by his heroism (not at all like Ginny!) but she seems to be blatantly lustful about what she wants from him. She finds him physically attractive--a hottie. That just seems emphasized more with questions of "But where are the girls third year?" Most people never have *any* experience being chased the way Harry is more than once. Being chased by girls is his experience, even if it's down to his general coolness and not just looks (which I can imagine JKR wanting us to get). My post was not claiming that Harry was most conventionally handsome but that other things gave him that experience. His experience *is* more like Sirius's despite Sirius being more handsome technically. I suspect that was more Betsy's point as well, that she was suggesting Harry was a bit like Hermione, who is also carefully described as not some cheerleader pretty girl who attracts mostly by looks (like Fleur), yet seems to operate as a confidently pretty woman in her dating life. -m From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 20:16:44 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:16:44 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177289 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "starview316" wrote: > > > lizzyben: > > > I keep forgetting that none of this matters anymore - it doesn't > > matter who starts the fights or who over-reacts or who is BMOC. > > Harry is the saved, Draco is the damned. Harry is the Elect, > > Snape is the reprobate. Harry wins because he's got God on his > > side. What's left to debate? > > > Amy: > > Not to be argumentative or anything, ('cause for the most part, I > agree with a lot of what you said here) but was Draco really "damned" > in the HP series? lizzyben: Yeah, IMO he was. If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory, and Slytherins are the non-elect, they're damned. That's why she was so insistent on not creating a truly "good" Slytherin - they are meant to be the House of the reprobate unsaved. It's also handy to have them around to smite. Amy: > I don't know if it's been discussed before, but even given the heavy > connotations of Slytherin = the damned in the final book, I'm hard > pressed to believe that anyone reading this series will not see a > forgiven, if not "redeemed" Draco in DH. The narrative was extremely > sympathetic to him. I'd say one of the major anvils in DH was that > Draco didn't want to be a Death Eater, in case no one got that from > HBP. I don't know exactly who said it, but Draco has a normal family, > wife and kid, in the epilogue, and that if anything indicated that > he'd been "redeemed" in JKR's world. > > Amy lizzyben: And a receding hairline! And a kid named "Scorpius!" (Scorpions, like snakes, are symbols of Satan.* Coincidence?) Has Draco changed his ideology, has he been forgiven by the author? I'm not sure. Forgiven, maybe. Redeemed? No. I don't think JKR really believes in the concept of redemption, though she pays it some lip-service. Redemption is not a part of traditional Calvinist thought - you are sorted Elect or damned from before birth, and there's no changing that. People are saved through grace, not good works. A reprobate might devote his life to charity, kindness & goodness and still not be Saved. This seems harsh, maybe, but that's what Calvinism preaches. To a Calvinist, your neighbor, your spouse, even you yourself might be damned - there's no way to know who has been predestined for salvation. This is true even if they are nice people or have some good qualities - most people do have something good, but most people are not saved. Only the Elect get the ticket. The difference is that in the Potterverse, through magic, we *do* know who is in the Elect. I think JKR started out w/this black-and-white, saved-and-damned viewpoint. Slytherins are the damned, full stop. But the problem was that over time, she spent so much time with these characters that she couldn't help making them, well, human. Draco's love for his family, Narcissa's courage, Lucius's loyalty, Snape's protectiveness all came out without her even knowing it. She started to feel sorry for Draco, Narcissa and even Snape. And she struggled. It's much easier to condemn faceless strangers, than to condemn people you know and care about. So that's why we end up w/this ending in which Slytherins as a group are condemned, yet the major Slytherin characters all seem to be forgiven. But to a good Calvinist, this is bad. You shouldn't question God's will or his Election - don't look at the damned, there is no help possible. I think that's DD ordering Harry (and JKR) over & over again to stop feeling sympathy for the reprobate. Harry learns to tune out its cries, as does JKR, in order to finish the black-and- white, saved-and-damned allegory she had started. lizzyben * "The seventy-two returned with joy and said, "Lord, even the demons submit to us in your name." He [Jesus] replied, "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you." Luke 10:17-19 From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 21 20:28:13 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:28:13 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177290 > Carol: > Does anyone think, for example, that Draco in the early books craves > the attention that Harry receives, even possibly viewing it as his by > right as both a Malfoy and a Black? zgirnius: I would agree. I also think he was shocked by Harry's rejection of his offer of friendship on the train, and has taken that a bit personally. > Carol: > (for example, Draco's hope in CoS that Slytherin's monster kills the > "Mudblood" Granger) to point B (for example, his apparent reluctance > to identify HRH and turn them in to Voldemort). zgirnius: This is something I can recall having read discussion of post-HBP. I agree with whoever it was (probably magpie...) who theorized that Draco feels he 'ought' to have this sort of sentiment, but has no understanding at all of death. His experiences in HBP, the danger he and his family were in as well as his own ultimate reluctance to kill Dumbledore even though it was clearly the way out if his immediate problems, changed that. I think in DH Draco stayed on Voldemort's side only because his parents were effectively hostages. Left free to choose, I am sure he would have preferred to sit it out, cheering the good guys from the sidelines. > Carol: > Also, oddly, he expresses concern for > "that diadem thing" that Harry is trying to retrieve, afraid that > Crabbe will destroy it with one of his spells (DH Am. ed. 629). zgirnius: I did not find it odd. I found it very much in line with how Draco handled his mission in HBP. He really did not want to kill anyone, especially not in a personal, face-to-face sort of way. So he poured his energy into something else - fixing the cabinet. When what he heard Harry say ed him to believe the tiara might be importsant, I think he saw it as a way to achieve his goal (get his family out of Voldemort's doghouse) without having to kill anyone or turn them over to Voldemort (who Draco knows wants Harry only to kill him personally). > Carol: > Perhaps what we're supposed to see in this scene is Harry's mercy and > gallantry (in contrast to Ron's reluctance to save Draco and Goyle and > his harsh reaction to Crabbe's death), but we also see a Draco who > (like his father) has lost his authority but (unlike his father) is > reluctant to hurt Harry and shows genuine concern for someone other > than himself. zgirnius: Well, I have already gone on record in previous posts about this scene. I think it is Draco's big moment in which we are shown his best side. (Not that we're supposed to ignore Harry, naturally...) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Fri Sep 21 22:23:25 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:23:25 -0000 Subject: Fall of the MOM, plight of wizard world in DH (Re: Trelawney Award, part II) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177291 > Hickengruendler: > I am a bit annoyed with myself, because I guessed the fall of the > ministry for the end of HBP. My thought was, that Voldemort needed > to do something, to became worse than ever. (Which he should, > according to Trelawney's prediction from PoA). Yet, when nothing > happened, I thought I was mistaken and did not even considered the > possibility, that it would happen at the beginning of book 7 > instead. I really don't know, why. Jen: Good observation about the possible trajectory. I didn't give much credence to the politics in OOTP beyond what was happening at Hogwarts. After HBP came out, I thought it was proof that the final book would be a more intimate look at various characters (backstories and connections) rather than the more action-oriented political maneuvering of OOTP. When JKR said, "You need what's in there [book 5] if I'm going to play fair for the reader in the resolution in book seven"* well that translated to me as, 'that means something important will happen at the DOM or St. Mungos, or maybe the Longbottom story will play a more important role or....' background IOW, not the story itself. Looking back, I honestly expected the Trio would go out looking for Horcruxes but the rest of the WW would basically stay the same as it did in HBP! Voldemort would have another plan to get Harry and the rest of the WW would continue in an almost static way - the Order would continue to fight back; the MOM wouldn't really get much done but wouldn't be taken over either; Hogwarts would remain operational under McGonagall because without Harry and Dumbledore, what did Voldemort care about it? Doh. Instead, and this makes sense in retrospect as really clever, Voldemort targeted all the major institutions in the WW for takeover right out of the gate, proving he did have a gift for spreading discord and enmity. The coup de grace was setting up Harry as Dumbledore's possible murderer, thus taking away (or at least throwing into question) the last hope for his defeat. And if I hadn't figured out I was reading primarily from Harry's pretty naive pov, this moment did it for me: "Panic pulsed in the pit of his stomach. As he passed gleaming wooden door after wooden door, each bearing a small plaque with the owner's name and occupation upon it, the might of the Ministry, its complexity, its impenetrability, seemed to force itself upon him so that the plan he had been carefully concocting with Ron and Hermione over the past four weeks seemed laughably childish." (DH, chap. 13, p. 247, Am. ed) Seems the scales dropped from our eyes at about the same time, lol. Jen *TLC/Mugglenet interview, July 2005 From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Fri Sep 21 22:46:28 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 08:46:28 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) Message-ID: <20070922084628.CUF79819@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177292 CAROL SAID: Anyway, I don't think it's masochism that keeps > Draco coming back > for more. I think it's a perverse sense of the > rightness of his cause, > at least in the sense of "might makes right," the > right side being the > winning side, the side in power. But he also resents > Harry for > receiving so much attention, and if he can't > eliminate that attention, > he can at least make sure that it's directed against > Harry ("Support > Cedric Diggory") or against his friends ("Weasley Is > Our King"). Sharon: I totally agree with you there. Draco undoubtedly believes in his own cause, at least in the first few books, and he also believes that he should be the one getting all the attention, given his lineage, money, and looks (Now before anyone gets into a discussion of whether Draco is handsome, I think it is fairly clear that Draco would have to be, even if it's not in canon, I haven't really looked, simply becuase he's rich, aristocratic and popular (in his own house). In any case, even if he's ordinary looking, he still commands attention for the other reasons. Harry is therefore a thorn in his side, not only for being famous for something he had no hand in (ie. living), but he's evereything that Draco has been taught to despise -- from Draco's pov a muggle-lover, a friend of a blood- traitor, specky, gitty, not bothered with connecting with the right people, etc. Carol: > Does anyone think, for example, that Draco in the > early books craves > the attention that Harry receives, even possibly > viewing it as his by > right as both a Malfoy and a Black? Our glimpse of > Prefect Lucius in > "the Prince's Tale" may give us an indication of the > position that > Draco wanted (in Slytherin, at least). There's also > a reference > somewhere to Draco "holding court" at the Slytherin > table, Sharon: see my para above :-) Totally agree. > Instead of generalizing about Slytherins in general > as "the damned," > I'd like to see us analyzing their motivation and > development to the > extent that that's possible. from point A > (for example, Draco's hope in CoS that Slytherin's > monster kills the > "Mudblood" Granger) to point B (for example, his > apparent reluctance > to identify HRH and turn them in to Voldemort). Sharon: The Slytherin's have a bit of a dark legacy, in the form of racism, to contend with. However, the presence of racism, especially the kind that is passed down by generations of priveleged families, does not preclude the existence of more virtuous traits. Slytherin house is known for cleverness, making the most of what you've got, ambition etc. Aristotle held up cleverness as a virtue, because he saw it as a disposition for being able to find the best means to achieve one's goals. He also claimed that cleverness goes with wisdom, as we need to be wise enough to know what goals to chose in the first place. Arguably, Slytherin students chose the ends they were taught were the best. Young tweens and teens are hardly in a position to think critically about the values they are given from their parents. It takes a concerted effort and a lot of maturity to be introspective in that way. Draco seems to achieve some level of introspection in the later books, and should be commended for such an achievment. IMO Carol: > I had always thought that Draco was merely using his > thuggish cronies > as bodyguards and "backup" and that he didn't really > care about them, > It's not just a matter of > letting the Dark Lord > kill Harry himself. He seems not to want Crabbe to > torture Harry, > either. (His reaction to Crabbe's attempt to kill > Hermione is unclear > since he loses his wand in the aftermath and says > nothing about her or > Ron; his concern seems to be for Harry. But he also > pulls Crabbe out > of the way of a Stunning spell, and, of course, > makes sure that Goyle > is saved along with himself.) Also, oddly, he > expresses concern for > "that diadem thing" that Harry is trying to > retrieve, afraid that > Crabbe will destroy it with one of his spells (DH > Am. ed. 629). > > To me, this scene represents Draco's mixed > loyalties Perhaps what we're supposed to see in this scene is > Harry's mercy and > gallantry (in contrast to Ron's reluctance to save > Draco and Goyle and > his harsh reaction to Crabbe's death), but we also > see a Draco who > (like his father) has lost his authority but (unlike > his father) is > reluctant to hurt Harry and shows genuine concern > for someone other > than himself. (Yes, Lucius loves his son, but he > seems to value his > own skin above all else.) Sharon: Amen! I thought Ron's reaction to Crabbe's death and his reluctance to save Goyle and Draco to be quite reprehensible. In that scene, Draco shows much more virtue in terms of courage and loyalty. Ron is of course loyal to Harry and shows courage in the RoR, but his almost total disregard of Draco and Goyle taints that. Harry, of course, is ever concerned for others, even his supposed enemies. I think by this stage he realises that Draco has had a change of heart, surprising as it may be. Carol, your posts are SO good, sometimes I read them and then don't answer them because there is always so much to think about, and so little time in which to think. :-) Sharon From lyanne at in.com.au Fri Sep 21 23:25:58 2007 From: lyanne at in.com.au (Lyanne Compton) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:25:58 +1000 Subject: quick question Message-ID: <4297100E-FE3F-4798-B360-E4EBFF75BFD9@in.com.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177293 loving the group, can someone tell me what BMOC means and LOLLIPOPS? I get the idea behind them but not what the actual letters stand for. Potter Escapist From lyanne at in.com.au Fri Sep 21 23:32:59 2007 From: lyanne at in.com.au (Lyanne Compton) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 09:32:59 +1000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177294 Carol: Where? Just one quote implying that Harry is handsome or good-looking will suffice. Potter Escapist: Well it's pretty clear from canon that Lily was supposed to be a real hottie and Harry has her "green, almond shaped eyes". Sounds fairly attractive to me. And we know he looks like his Dad who is portrayed as true alpha male. I think the point is that his looks aren't the big issue, and not what drives or shapes the character in any way...but he definitely has a few things going for him in the looks dept. He also stops being short by book 5, as Hermione comments on. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From starview316 at yahoo.ca Fri Sep 21 23:52:33 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2007 23:52:33 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177295 > lizzyben: > > Yeah, IMO he was. If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory, and > Slytherins are the non-elect, they're damned. That's why she was so > insistent on not creating a truly "good" Slytherin - they are meant > to be the House of the reprobate unsaved. It's also handy to have > them around to smite. Amy: Of course, to each his/her own reading, I realize that everyone has their own interpretations. But any conclusions drawn fron any one reading *aren't* automatically fact, and I personally have a very hard time believing that Draco was damned, or was meant to be damned, either. Again, because he is a Slytherin, you could see a possibility of his eternal damnation, but in my own opinion, based off the narrator's sympathetic responses to Draco, as well as the fact that he had a (from all appearances) healthy family of his own in the Epilogue, I can't believe that JKR shares your opinion. I don't believe that she sees Draco as "damned". I think she sees him as forgiven, but the very concept of forgiveness negates eternal damnation. I agree that the major Slytherin characters seemed to be forgiven (I personally think Snape was redeemed full-stop, but I'm willing to argue this point later); therefore, whether or not she is a good Calvinist, she can't see them as damned at the same time. > lizzyben: > > And a receding hairline! And a kid named "Scorpius!" (Scorpions, > like snakes, are symbols of Satan.* Coincidence?) Has Draco changed > his ideology, has he been forgiven by the author? I'm not sure. Amy: The very fact that he's in the epilogue in the first place (not rotting in Azkaban) indicates to me that he's been forgiven by JKR. It's not like "Hugo" and "Albus Severus" are such prize names (by your argument, the fact that Albus is named after one of the damned indicates that either Harry or Ginny are damned, too). >lizzyben: > But to a good Calvinist, this is bad. You shouldn't question God's > will or his Election - don't look at the damned, there is no help > possible. I think that's DD ordering Harry (and JKR) over & over > again to stop feeling sympathy for the reprobate. Harry learns to > tune out its cries, as does JKR, in order to finish the black-and- > white, saved-and-damned allegory she had started. Amy: On JKR, though, (and I'm basing the entirety of this on your own statement on Calvinism) if she were such a good Calvinist there wouldn't be an issue of human Draco; he wouldn't need forgiveness because he wouldn't want it anyway, he'd have killed Voldemort, merrily gone on his way as a loyal Death Eater, and spent the rest of his days in Azkaban. If this were a strictly Calvinist series, we probably wouldn't be discussing this in the first place. Or, if it is, then it has to be mentioned that Draco, by a limit of only two categories (Saved and Damned) would most likely be in the Saved category. I've heard the mutterings about JKR's Calvinist leanings, and while I agree that she applied at least some of them to the HPverse, I can't see them in every little thing the way others can. I grant you that there was something highly disturbing about the scene with Voldie! Baby, though. Amy From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 22 04:18:00 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:18:00 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177296 > > Carol: > > Also, oddly, he expresses concern for > > "that diadem thing" that Harry is trying to retrieve, afraid that > > Crabbe will destroy it with one of his spells (DH Am. ed. 629). > > zgirnius: > I did not find it odd. I found it very much in line with how Draco > handled his mission in HBP. He really did not want to kill anyone, > especially not in a personal, face-to-face sort of way. So he > poured his energy into something else - fixing the cabinet. When > what he heard Harry say ed him to believe the tiara might be > importsant, I think he saw it as a way to achieve his goal (get his > family out of Voldemort's doghouse) without having to kill anyone > or turn them over to Voldemort (who Draco knows wants Harry only to > kill him personally). Jen: This is a good explanation for Draco's interest in the diadem. Although I thought by this point in the story Draco would have heard enough to know that whatever mission Harry's undertaking would be important for the permanent defeat of Voldemort. He's heard all the Chosen One stuff and knows now that Harry was on the tower the night Dumbledore died (thus with him when he went out that night). There's no canon Draco knows about the Horcruxes, but it does appear he was in Malfoy Manor throughout the entire year, which means he was present when Voldemort got so enraged about the golden cup. So if Draco thought taking the diadem to Voldemort might help him and his family, that's pretty short-sighted when there's good evidence Harry's working on something to thwart LV. Is it the same barrier Snape had about Harry, Draco think's Harry is mediocre and not up for the job? The schoolboy rivalry at work? Draco's been so terrorized over the year that he's in survival mode and not thinking past himself and his family? Maybe a little of all these things I suppose. I like the idea that Draco is in the ROR to make sure Crabbe and Goyle didn't hinder Harry's mission, especially since Draco parrots some of Snape's phrasing from the run across the grounds when talking to Crabbe. But the fact that Draco is curious about the diadem and willing to tell Crabbe about it does indicate some self-interest at work, despite knowing Harry must want the diadem for some reason connected to Voldemort's downfall: " Potter came in here to get it," said Malfoy with ill-disguised impatience at the slow-wittedness of his colleagues, "so that must mean - " (DH, chap. 31, p. 630, Am. ed.) From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 04:51:56 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 04:51:56 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177297 > > Amy: > > > > Not to be argumentative or anything, ('cause for the most part, > > I agree with a lot of what you said here) but was Draco > > really "damned" in the HP series? > > lizzyben: > > Yeah, IMO he was. If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory, and > Slytherins are the non-elect, they're damned. Mike: "If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory" is a mighty big *IF*. This may be the way you've read these books, but I don't see them that way at all, nor do I see any reason to believe that JKR was fond of or wrote with a Calvinistic bent. First off, AFAIK, JKR is not a Calvinist herself. She doesn't follow Calvinistic teachings. And she admitted that her Christian values influenced her decisions in writing the series, especially the finale. So, if she isn't a Calvinist and yet she did assign her personal Christian values to her writing, how do you conclude that her assigned personal values are Calvinist? Secondly, JKR wasn't assigning wizards to Heaven or Hell as far as I can determine. Where wizards went after death wasn't defined at all. In OotP, NHN answered Harry's question of where do wizards go when they die with "I cannot answer." And that's it! No more attempts to find out where wizards go, nor any character or narrative voice even broaching the subject. It seems to me that JKR purposely sidestepped any assignation, including the supposed "elect" and "damned" that you've chosen to believe she used. > lizzyben: > That's why she was so insistent on not creating a truly "good" > Slytherin - they are meant to be the House of the reprobate > unsaved. It's also handy to have them around to smite. Mike: Or maybe it's as simple as JKR needed a house for bad guys and Slytherin was it. No deeper assignation of "unsaved", no Calvinistic determinations since she wasn't writing a Calvinistic allegory. Your last flippant sentence seems closer to the purpose of Slytherin than any of the deeper allegorical theories. And yet, the only Slytherins that we know for sure were "smited" were Bellatrix and Tom Riddle. Both of whom had done plenty of smiting of their own before their downfalls. > lizzyben: > > > Redemption is not a part of traditional Calvinist thought - you are > sorted Elect or damned from before birth, and there's no changing > that. People are saved through grace, not good works. A reprobate > might devote his life to charity, kindness & goodness and still not > be Saved. Mike: So we've gone from *IF* to WAS, I guess. How about I call this series an allegory for Christ's sacrifice for mankind? After all, isn't that what Harry did, willingly offer himself up for death to save the rest of the WW? Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins including all the Slytherins. I don't read the books that way, nor do I believe JKR wrote the books that way. But that is just as valid a reading, with just as much validation from canon as your Calvinistic reading. If anything, based on the author's own words and her own faith, it's more valid, imo. Yet, I find that type of assignation ridiculous, so I wouldn't espouse it. > lizzyben: > > This seems harsh, maybe, but that's what Calvinism preaches. Mike: And only matters if JKR wrote a Calvinistic allegory, which I don't believe she did. > lizzyben: > The difference is that in the Potterverse, through magic, > we *do* know who is in the Elect. Mike: No, we know who got sorted into Slytherin. The *only* character that was depicted as irredeemable was Tom Riddle, and a case could be made that he chose his path. (I won't make that argument, however) The rest of the characters, including the Slytherins, were shown to have chosen their respective paths. Then there were those that were tricked into following LV, and once in, you can't get out. Sounds more and more like LV was a Satanic allegorical character, doesn't it? And still, I won't make that argument. > lizzyben: > > I think JKR started out w/this black-and-white, saved-and-damned > viewpoint. Slytherins are the damned, full stop. But the problem > was that over time, she spent so much time with these characters > that she couldn't help making them, well, human. Draco's love for > his family, Narcissa's courage, Lucius's loyalty, Snape's > protectiveness all came out without her even knowing it. She > started to feel sorry for Draco, Narcissa and even Snape. And she > struggled. It's much easier to condemn faceless strangers, than to > condemn people you know and care about. So that's why we end up > w/ this ending in which Slytherins as a group are condemned, yet > the major Slytherin characters all seem to be forgiven. Mike: I've left this whole paragraph because I didn't want to chop anything to make it look like selective editing on my part. I've read this many times and it just doesn't make sense. "Slytherins are the damned" despite all the humaness she gave to some of the Slytherins? It's easier to condemn the faceless strangers, yet these characters are neither faceless nor strangers? How can *all* the Slytherins be condemned and yet *some* are not? > lizzyben: > > But to a good Calvinist, this is bad. You shouldn't question God's > will or his Election - don't look at the damned, there is no help > possible. I think that's DD ordering Harry (and JKR) over & over > again to stop feeling sympathy for the reprobate. Harry learns to > tune out its cries, as does JKR, in order to finish the black-and- > white, saved-and-damned allegory she had started. Mike: So, although we've got an entire house of reprobates the only reprobate Harry was told to "stop feeling sympathy for" was the one truly evil character that was beyond saving. But of course, Dumbledore did *not* tell Harry to stop feeling sympathy for the flayed Voldiebit, he told him he cannot help it. "Something that is beyond either of our help." Is that Calvinism or a case of reaping what you've sown? With all the references to Voldemort going beyond the bounds of *usual evil*, I would say the latter. And still, Voldemort will have a chance to repair himself if he feels some real remorse. Yes, I know, not even remotely likely, but still it was there. And, had LV had a remorse epiphany, would that only mean he could leave the "train station" for Hell? I don't think that was the option, since it's not much of an option. So the most evil character in the book, the character that caused so much death and destruction that he was beyond redemption could still have saved himself from eternal... whatever... according to JKR's formula. Yet you've decided that JKR *didn't* give him that option, no matter how unlikely he would take it, because you've decided that he was "damned" from birth. I'm not seeing how you can square this theory with canon. Mike From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 05:22:00 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 05:22:00 -0000 Subject: quick question In-Reply-To: <4297100E-FE3F-4798-B360-E4EBFF75BFD9@in.com.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177298 > Potter Escapist > > loving the group, can someone tell me what BMOC means and LOLLIPOPS? > > I get the idea behind them but not what the actual letters stand for. Mike: LOLLIPOPS = Love Of Lily Left Ire Polluting Our Poor Severus There is a list of many Potterverse/HPfGU acronyms in Inish Alley. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=28 Or click on "Database" - the menu to the left. Inish Alley is one of the tables. If you wish to read the posts that started these acronyms, the db gives message numbers. For a truly entertaining explanation, try Hypothetic Alley, a gem of accumulated posts and narrative from HPfGU legends of yore. :D http://hpfgu.org.uk/faq/hypotheticalley.html BMOC = Big Man On Campus - which is a universal acronym not particular to the Potterverse. There is another meaning for this acronym which can be found here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/164012 Mike, shamelessly self-promoting his prior post ;) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 06:25:53 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:25:53 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: <20070922084628.CUF79819@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177299 --- Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Sharon: > Amen! I thought Ron's reaction to Crabbe's death > and his reluctance to save Goyle and Draco to be > quite reprehensible. In that scene, Draco shows much > more virtue in terms of courage and loyalty. Ron is > of course loyal to Harry and shows courage in the > RoR, but his almost total disregard of Draco and > Goyle taints that. Harry, of course, is ever > concerned for others, even his supposed enemies. I > think by this stage he realises that Draco has had > a change of heart, surprising as it may be. > > Carol, your posts are SO good, sometimes I read them > and then don't answer them because there is always > so much to think about, and so little time in which > to think. :-) > > Sharon > bboyminn: I generally agree with both Carol and Sharon regarding Draco. In a distant past post I said that Draco see himself as the Crown Prince of Slytherin; if not Prince of Hogwarts. He expected to come to school and be the center of attention, and in his own little world he could have been if it wasn't for his obsession with Harry. Keep in mind that Draco's harassment goes on for quite a while before people get sick of it and defend themselves. I think, within the context of his own world view, Draco's offer of friendship to Harry was genuine. Unfortunately, Draco's 'world view' lead him to seek Harry's friendship in the worst possible way. Once Harry snubbed him, Draco was determine to prove himself the superior to both Harry and Ron. Again, he fails miserably. Draco keeps coming back because he is determined to assert his position of status and superiority to riff-raff like Harry and Ron. So says I. As to the scene in the Room of Requirements as discussed above. True Harry was heroic, but I don't blame Ron for his attitude. Crabbe and Goyle had tried to kill them and Draco seem intent on turning Harry over to Voldemort, in whose care Harry would surely die. This is war, or at least war-like in the level of self-defense. When someone tries to kill you, you kill them back if you want to stay alive. Let us also not forget that they were trapped in a room that was engulfed in intelligent flames. Flames that were soaring and leaping and chasing them. Under those circumstances I don't think too many of us would have worried about the people who just tried to kill us, and as a result of their own negligence, killed themselves. I also don't think anyone in the wizard world or muggle world would have held Ron responsible for those deaths under those circumstances. I think they would have been perfectly justified in leaving the people who cause the mess behind, and saving themselves. Now don't get me wrong, I'm glad that Harry and Ron turned back and did their best. I'm just saying that no one would have blamed them if they had not. As to the last little bit about Carol, once again, I agree. Carol's posts are always good, even when she disagrees with me :( . But lately she has really been in her stride, sending one good post after another. Always well reasoned and thoughtful. Even in threads that I have given up on, if Carol adds a comment, I'll check the thread out to see if it has taken on a new life or moved in a new direction. Take a bow Carol. Steve/bboyminn From AllieS426 at aol.com Sat Sep 22 14:30:41 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:30:41 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177300 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > I personally never in my life > imagined Harry as handsome. I took his first description very > seriously, and this is how I see Harry even now, after the last book > (only taller, of course). I see him as a very ordinary-looking boy > with very beautiful eyes. > Allie: For some reason, I have this idea in my head that Harry became better- looking as he got older. (Maybe now that he has proper meals he's not quite so skinny.) If you look at the book covers, he's drawn to be more attractive in the later books, so maybe the artist has the same idea. Or, maybe I got that idea from the book covers. :) In general, pre-teens are pretty awkward-looking and teenagers are less so. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 22 15:08:26 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:08:26 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177301 > Jen: This is a good explanation for Draco's interest in the diadem. > Although I thought by this point in the story Draco would have heard > enough to know that whatever mission Harry's undertaking would be > important for the permanent defeat of Voldemort. He's heard all the > Chosen One stuff and knows now that Harry was on the tower the night > Dumbledore died (thus with him when he went out that night). There's > no canon Draco knows about the Horcruxes, but it does appear he was > in Malfoy Manor throughout the entire year, which means he was > present when Voldemort got so enraged about the golden cup. Magpie: No, he wasn't. It's easy not to be clear on this because he's there when they go, but Narcissa says he's there during Easter break. I was confused about this too, but it appears that Draco was actually a student at school during the year--I kept thinking he was at the Manor and then would realize I was wrong! That line you quoted always stuck with me, with Draco being cut off about the diadem, I guess because I was confused as to what exactly he was up to and it just seemed like I couldn't be sure what he really thought about the diadem either. If you look at his lines I *think* most of them *on the surface* are in-line with Harry, even though presumably he's there working against him. I mean that if you look at what he's saying it's "Don't kill him/no no no/you might hurt the diadem..." The one pro-Voldemort thing I remember is "The Dark Lord wants him alive..." which explains how he could protect him and be following LV, but the only other DE who's focused on keeping Harry alive is Snape--and we know by now that Draco isn't a "true" DE by that point anyway. He also physically keeps Crabbe from cursing. It seems like JKR sees Draco worthy of some forgiveness--I haven't read The Little White Horse for a while, but I have this vague idea that he might be somebody like the dog Wiggins in that book who's kind of dreadful but basically just a silly dog. I will just forever be confused as to this scene (though generally I was always a bit confused when Draco showed up in DH) since she just showed us a scene where Draco is in the exact same situation, where turning Harry over to LV will save his family, and he won't/can't do it himself. Nothing happens after that that gives him any reason to change in the direction of wanting Harry turned over, and indeed JKR doesn't quite write him as having done that. Crabbe's not only not following Draco's orders, he seems to be doing the ordering. Draco's behind him, not taunting anyone. Harry laughs at the whole situation of Draco being there with the wands etc. It's like Draco's personality has been purged or split. His "evil" side, the DE, has been removed and put into Crabbe, who's then burned. Draco is left rudderless and confused (where I thought he was at the end of HBP and thought would get over in DH). The only trouble for me is that his being in the RoR seems too active for him. I guess the motivation that makes sense to me given the state Draco seems to be in in the book is to believe that Draco merely stayed behind to opt out in general and when the Trio popped up in front of them Crabbe decided to follow. It *would* go along with the motivations we've seen Draco have if he then followed them to try to prevent Harry being killed, only because the one overriding motivation Draco *does* seem to have is a repulsion for violence and murder. He's not *compeltely* self-preservation based, or he'd have run out of the RoR with Crabbe. So I can imagine that he felt both pushed to follow Crabbe due to his current trait for two reasons: a) the former "spoiled child" has lost a lot of his ability to assert himself against Voldemort, and if Crabbe pointed out that a real DE would follow Harry to get him he might follow b) he *might* have a problem knowing what Crabbe and Goyle might do, both because killing Harry would get his parents in trouble and because we know he doesn't want Harry dead. -m From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 16:01:01 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:01:01 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177302 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > So why have I bothered with this argument... I think because I > > see it as a bit disingenuous to say Harry's less popular than > > Draco and also an everyman. Though it's more JKR who's being > > disingenuous than anyone making that particular argument. > >>Alla: > Well, thank you, LOL that you agreed to not consider my argument to > be disingenuous. Since I most certainly among those making it. > I usually think of everybody's argument as not disingenious by > default. Betsy Hp: Oh, I don't. But I do acknowledge that in this case, people have been pulled in by JKR's clever ways. She'd make an incredibly good propagandist. > >>Alla: > I think she just makes the cake, personally and find her to be a > very good baker, LOL. Betsy Hp: Don't eat it Alla! It's evil!! LOL. > >>Betsy Hp: > > From the moment Harry entered the magical world he was a > > superstar that far outshone the Malfoy family name. But JKR has > > set Draco up to fulfill a certain trope. So the superstar is > > made a nerd by virtue of his glasses, and the underdog is made > > the BMOC by virtue of his blond hair and poncy accent. > >>Alla: > You start from establishing something as a fact and proceed to > build your argument on the premise that does not work for > everybody, but since you say it as a fact, it looks like the other > reading is somehow less supported by the text. Betsy Hp: Hmm... Not on purpose I assure you. If anyone can point to the Slytherin table cheering "We've got Malfoy!" or heck, the Gryffindor table cheering "We've got Granger!" at Harry's Sorting... Or if someone could point out the scene where Draco's hand is continuously shaken by strangers thrilled with the chance to meet him... Or if someone could point out a teacher falling off their chair because they're so excited that Draco's in their classroom... Or if someone could point out another student that has a top-of-the-line broom purchased for them by Hogwarts... Then, yeah, I'll agree that it's just my *opinion* that people in the WW are a bit more interested in the name "Harry Potter" than "Draco Malfoy". > >>Alla: > In this paragraph you also switch from Harry's position in Hogwarts > in comparison to Draco to Harry's position in the WW as in > comparison to Draco. Betsy Hp: Probably because I do see them as interchangable. Harry is huge in the WW and that transfers to his place in the school. (Unless someone can point out all those scenes that show Harry's experience is rather ho-hum and normal, of course. ) > >>Alla > Chosen one is surely well known in WW, although Malfoy's name seems > pretty well known to me to - Board of Governors and all that. Oh, > and Harry not being in WW for eleven years also IMO helps equal the > stakes. Betsy Hp: Actually (and I suspect this might be the rub) Harry has nothing to do with his fame. Not in the sense that it's something Harry purposefully created. His presence was not required for his legend to grow (obviously as he's not been around as you point out) and he doesn't need to work to maintain his celebrity. Nor, IMO, does Harry want to. *Harry* doesn't care for being, and at first doesn't realize that he is, a superstar. But just because Harry didn't ask for it doesn't make it not so. > >>Alla: > So, if we are back to Hogwarts, I will just say what Amy said for > the most part, I especially liked that popularity does not equal > that other word. Betsy Hp: I missed that, what other word? BMOC or big man on campus? Actually those two words are interchangable. And they're not actually a commentary on someone's personality. As Harry can be an example of. Again, Harry doesn't seek to be nor work to maintain his status as "best known boy at Hogwarts". He's *annoyed* by the girls chasing him. But the fact is, he's well known and girls chase him. > >>Alla: > But specifically, NO so called superstar is not made a nerd by the > virtue of his glasses IMO, he is made a nerd ( and being a well > known person at the same time) by growing apart from this world, by > knowing nothing about his heritage and has to fit in the whole new > world and of course by dealing with something that school has no > problem ostracising him for from time to time. Betsy Hp: Harry *sees himself* as an Everyman, yes. And he sees himself as an outsider. That's where JKR gets you. Because that's how Harry *feels*. But the actual point of fact is that the WW definintely sees Harry as belonging to *them* not the muggle-world. And when you look at what he actually experiences at school, Harry is treated like a BMOC. And honestly, being on the outs is the dark side of being BMOC. IIRC, Harry suffered the most in PS/SS after that massive point loss *because* everyone knew him to blame him. Neville didn't get it quite as bad because Neville wasn't as popular to begin with. > >>Alla: > And so called "underdog" - because to me he is no underdog in any > way shape or form is not made BMOC by virtue of his hair and accent. > He is made one by what he does and what he stands for in my view. Betsy Hp: And the hair and the accent help show you what he stands for. Draco is an upperclass white boy. Which, in JKR's world, equals evil as surely as a pretty girl who likes being pretty. Draco is an underdog by virtue of being a Slytherin. He's a jewish boy in 1930's Germany. A black boy in 1830's USA. He's the outsider and the scapegoat of his world and that gets demonstrated to him (and us) by his being beat-down time and again. There is not a clash with Harry that Draco doesn't lose. (Except for that train scene in HBP which I loved. ) The above is my opinion of course. It's why I think these books are evil. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Which means, I suppose, that per JKR Draco is the BMOC and > > totally popular with everyone and would win every single > > quidditch match and poor Harry just has to struggle to get by. > > Oh, but Harry always, always, wins and no one really likes > > Draco at all. > >>Alla: > Nobody likes Draco at all? Seems like he has a plenty of Slytherin > friends to me. Betsy Hp: Well yes. Evil likes evil. But does Draco ever have a group of Hufflpuffs and Ravenclaws standing behind him when he takes on Harry? (Hmm... I'm not sure Draco ever has other houses laughing with him for that matter. JKR's pretty strict about segregating out the Slytherins. Don't want the unclean to mingle after all.) > >>Alla: > And the funny thing is, I really do believe JKR when she writes > that, I really do believe her that in every new struggle with Draco > Harry has to fight and often for his life to win. > > With me she succeeded brilliantly. Betsy Hp: I think the way she spins it is that *Harry* sees himself as the underdog. And since we're in Harry's POV, and encouraged to like and agree with him, I think that's where this idea that this kid who's never beaten Harry before might just succeed now. It's clever. I'll give JKR that. But it doesn't do enough to convince me. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 16:29:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:29:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177303 > > >>Alla: > > So, if we are back to Hogwarts, I will just say what Amy said for > > the most part, I especially liked that popularity does not equal > > that other word. > > Betsy Hp: > I missed that, what other word? BMOC or big man on campus? Actually > those two words are interchangable. And they're not actually a > commentary on someone's personality. As Harry can be an example of. > Again, Harry doesn't seek to be nor work to maintain his status > as "best known boy at Hogwarts". He's *annoyed* by the girls chasing > him. But the fact is, he's well known and girls chase him. Alla: Notoriety, I think? Harry is well known, yes, but to me popular means **likable** all the time and both school and WW turns out on him at the first sign that they could. So, again, do not see him as oh so likable at least half of the time. > Betsy Hp: > Harry *sees himself* as an Everyman, yes. And he sees himself as an > outsider. That's where JKR gets you. Because that's how Harry > *feels*. But the actual point of fact is that the WW definintely > sees Harry as belonging to *them* not the muggle-world. And when you > look at what he actually experiences at school, Harry is treated like > a BMOC. Alla: It is only your opinion Betsy. I would like to ask you to please respect mine enough without implying that JKR manipulates me. I am intelligent person, I promise you, I am able to figure out how I interpret the text by myself. Nobody is asking you to agree with me and vice versa, but I am interpreting text just as you are, and resent the idea that I cannot make up my mind without author manipulating me. I mean, she is manipulating me but in a different sense that I understood you to imply. She manipulates me in a sense that I follow her story, that I enjoy it, etc, but it is not a manipulation really, it is a good solid writing I love. So, NO "Harry is treated like a BMOC" is your intepretation,YOUR opinion and so not a fact as far as I am concerned. BMOC is not usually treated as the most evil boy ever and I think Harry is treated that way when he is suspected of being Slytherin heir. BMOC of WW is NOT treated the way WW treats his so called superstar, when smallest dirt is enough to turn on Harry and portray him as evil and crasy. Nope, NOT BMOC in my mind at all. > Betsy Hp: > And the hair and the accent help show you what he stands for. Draco > is an upperclass white boy. Which, in JKR's world, equals evil as > surely as a pretty girl who likes being pretty. > > Draco is an underdog by virtue of being a Slytherin. He's a jewish > boy in 1930's Germany. A black boy in 1830's USA. He's the outsider > and the scapegoat of his world and that gets demonstrated to him (and > us) by his being beat-down time and again. There is not a clash with > Harry that Draco doesn't lose. (Except for that train scene in HBP > which I loved. ) > > The above is my opinion of course. It's why I think these books are > evil. Alla: Really? Okay, mine he is a hitler youth in fascist Hermany in 1930s, somebody who was taught to hate jews and **others" since he was a kid and went happily went on to try to implement what he was taught when he was a kid, but when he got a taste of murder, he realised that he just cannot swallow it. So, that is why I think those books are not evil among other things, because anything to show how wrong what he stands for is, I will applaud for. As I mentioned before, I knew quite a few little antisemits in my youth, I hope that they all learned some lessons of how bad it is to hate the people just because they are of different ethnicity, but I am not holding my breath too much. I am just thanking JKR for making Draco learn his lessons. Just my opinion, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 16:38:22 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:38:22 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks - Butt Ugly vs Hollywood Handsome In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177304 --- "Carol" wrote: ... > >> Carol responds: > >> > >> "Various girls since he was eleven"? I count > >>Ginny as one girl. In PoA, when he's thirteen, Cho > >> ... starts to like him,..., but that still makes > >> only two girls. In GoF, girls are temporarily > >> attracted to Harry as a TWT champion--...--but > >> once the ball is over, things return to normal. > >>... > Carol responds: > > But my point is, Harry's (occasional) attractiveness > to girls has little to do with his looks ... and > everything to do with who he is ... and what he has > done .... Perhaps we should substitute "popularity" > for "attractiveness" since Harry attracts girls > other than Ginny and Cho only during times of > popularity ... > > Betsy Hp said he was handsome and that his looks > attracted the girls. I'm saying ... that what > attracts the girls, starting with Ginny but including > Cho and Romilda Vane and a dozen or so unnamed others > at only two periods in seven books, is his fame... bboyminn: Once again, and I am sure to no one's surprise, I agree with Carol. We must remember that 'looks' are a spectrum, not simply 'good' and 'bad', or as I will use it here 'butt ugly' and 'Hollywood Handsome'. Harry absolutely does not fall into the 'butt ugly' category, but neither does he fall into the Hollywood Handsome catagroy. Like most of us, he falls into the middle ground of cute and/or attractive. But 'attractive' in no way implies beautiful. You must have seen on occasion in life, a person of modest appearance with a person of impressive beauty. That relationship clearly shows a distinction between beauty and attractiveness. Attractiveness is a very abstract concept, can you explain how and why, when you walk into a crowded room, you are attracted so some people and not others? My point is that Harry is clearly in the middle ground of appearance. And those that are attracted to him, are so attracted for various reasons. Some are drawn by the perception of fame and power at any given moment. Other like Ginny (eventually) and I'm sure Cho, are genuinely attracted to Harry as a person. Fame and power are powerful aphrodisiacs, and can draw people to you, but most often their attraction is selfish. They want to bask in the reflected glory that spills over, and it wouldn't hurt if a lot of money and attention fell their way too. That's one of the biggest problems for people who have fame; how do you tell the glory seekers and money grubbers from the truly sincere people? Harry clearly doesn't trust the motives of a majority of people who find him attractive because he knows that without the fame and noteriety they wouldn't give him a second look. This is clear from the story, as we see Harry's fame wax and wane, we see his popularity and attractiveness wax and wane along with it. That is a fickle form of attractiveness that has nothing to do with who Harry is or how he looks. Rambling a bit, but I think there's something there. Steve/bboyminn From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 16:41:58 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:41:58 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177305 > Mike: > "If JKR started out w/a Calvinist allegory" is a mighty big *IF*. > This may be the way you've read these books, but I don't see them > that way at all, nor do I see any reason to believe that JKR was fond > of or wrote with a Calvinistic bent. lizzyben: Yes, this is my own personal interpretation. Other people might not interpret the novels that way, and that's fine. Under this interpretation, Slytherins are indeed the reprobate. Mike: > First off, AFAIK, JKR is not a Calvinist herself. She doesn't follow > Calvinistic teachings. And she admitted that her Christian values > influenced her decisions in writing the series, especially the > finale. So, if she isn't a Calvinist and yet she did assign her > personal Christian values to her writing, how do you conclude that > her assigned personal values are Calvinist? lizzyben: JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which was founded on Calvinistic principles. The official Church doctrine is contained in a document called the "Westminster Confession", which was written in 1647 & remains church law. The Confession preaches double predestination, salvation of the Elect, condemnation of the reprobate, and the five points of TULIP. As part of my little research project, I've read the Confession - and there's a lot of hellfire and damnation there; not much tolerance or forgiveness. The "Elect/reprobate" split isn't just outlined in one section; it runs all throughout the document. It is conservative, Calvinist, orthodox Protestantism. Church of Scotland: Church Law (Westminster Confession) - http://www.churchofscotlandextranet.org.uk/xchurchlaw/xchurchlawconfession.htm Some excerpts from the Confession on election & judgement: "CHAP. III. Of God's Eternal Decree. III. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death. IV. These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished. V. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory, out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace. VI. ... Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. VII. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice. VIII. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care..." The Last Judgement - "II. The end of God's appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of his mercy in the eternal salvation of the elect, and of his justice in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fulness of joy and refreshing which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." I don't know if JKR is a Calvinist or not, but she is a member of a Calvinist church, and has stated that her religious beliefs will be apparent in the last novel. I think it's reasonable to believe that JKR's Calvinist/Protestant beliefs influenced the HP novels in the same way that Tolkein's Catholicism influenced LOTR, or CS Lewis's Anglican beliefs influenced Narnia. Why shouldn't it? Mike: > Secondly, JKR wasn't assigning wizards to Heaven or Hell as far as I > can determine. Where wizards went after death wasn't defined at all. > In OotP, NHN answered Harry's question of where do wizards go when > they die with "I cannot answer." And that's it! No more attempts to > find out where wizards go, nor any character or narrative voice even > broaching the subject. It seems to me that JKR purposely sidestepped > any assignation, including the supposed "elect" and "damned" that > you've chosen to believe she used. lizzyben: Well, JKR said "I cannot answer" as well, because if she answered that question, readers would know what was coming in the seventh book. She has said that the last book would reveal what happens after death. She DID sidestep the question for 6 books, in order to provide the answer in the spiritual climax of the series - "King's Cross." In this chapter, Harry "dies" and his soul travels to a kind of afterlife. There his flaws & scars are washed away, and his perfect soul meets with Dumbledore (God) in light. At the same time, LV's reprobate, evil, soul is condemned to everlasting torment, agony and punishment. God (DD) tells elect Harry that there is no help possible for the damned. > Mike: > So we've gone from *IF* to WAS, I guess. How about I call this series > an allegory for Christ's sacrifice for mankind? After all, isn't that > what Harry did, willingly offer himself up for death to save the rest > of the WW? Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins > including all the Slytherins. lizzyben: But they aren't. Let's assume that Harry's sacrifice & return was an analogy to Christ. In other denominations, Christ's sacrifice saved & protected all of mankind. But in Calvinism, Christ's sacrifice only saves & protects *some* of mankind - the elect. That's one of the 5 points of TULIP: Limited Atonement. "Limited Atonement - the doctrine states that Jesus Christ's substitutionary atonement on the cross is limited in scope to those who are predestined unto salvation and its primary benefits are not given to all of humankind but rather just believers." After Harry sacrifices himself, his "blood protection" saves & protects all of his followers during the Battle. LV can't harm Harry anymore, or Neville. During the LV/Harry duel, Harry says "I was willing to die to stop you... I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. You can't torture them. You can't touch them." But Voldemort *can* still torture Narcissa, even after Harry's sacrifice. Because Narcissa is not among the circle of the saved, and so does not receive the "protection" of Harry's sacrifice. Limited atonement. Mike: > I don't read the books that way, nor do I believe JKR wrote the books > that way. But that is just as valid a reading, with just as much > validation from canon as your Calvinistic reading. If anything, based > on the author's own words and her own faith, it's more valid, imo. > Yet, I find that type of assignation ridiculous, so I wouldn't > espouse it. lizzyben: Well, given that JKR herself has stated that her religious beliefs play a large role in the last novel, I don't see it as "assignation" so much as "interpretation." We already *know* that her faith influenced the events of DH. How? Where? What does the symbolism mean? Etc. I don't see why it's ridiculous to examine religious allegories/metaphors when JKR herself has said that her religion is apparent in the last book. > > lizzyben: > > The difference is that in the Potterverse, through magic, > > we *do* know who is in the Elect. > > Mike: > No, we know who got sorted into Slytherin. The *only* character that > was depicted as irredeemable was Tom Riddle, and a case could be made > that he chose his path. (I won't make that argument, however) The > rest of the characters, including the Slytherins, were shown to have > chosen their respective paths. Then there were those that were > tricked into following LV, and once in, you can't get out. Sounds > more and more like LV was a Satanic allegorical character, doesn't > it? And still, I won't make that argument. lizzyben: Yes, the Slytherins chose their path. And they chose badly because they have bad characters. I was expecting to find someone was tricked into following LV, but actually no one was. All the Death Eaters entered knowing what LV was about, & they chose it because they admired & wanted to follow that path. > Mike: > I've left this whole paragraph because I didn't want to chop anything > to make it look like selective editing on my part. I've read this > many times and it just doesn't make sense. "Slytherins are the > damned" despite all the humaness she gave to some of the Slytherins? > It's easier to condemn the faceless strangers, yet these characters > are neither faceless nor strangers? How can *all* the Slytherins be > condemned and yet *some* are not? lizzyben: It doesn't make sense to me either, & I won't pretend it does. I'm just trying to look at this from the perspective of someone who *does* truly believe in the precepts of Calvinism. Assuming JKR is a Calvinist & that the novels reflect that faith (a big assumption, yes) how can we explain the ending? JKR has stated that she planned the last third of the seventh novel while she wrote the very first book. That's the planned Calvinist allegory - 1st book ending (elect Gryfs beat reprobate Slyths, yay.) to 7th book ending (elect Hogwarts fighters beat reprobate Death Eaters, yay). In between, the novels had a chance to become much deeper & more complex. And the Slytherin characters became more complex as well, & became more than simplistic "bad guys." They started out as reprobates, but after spending 12 years w/these characters, JKR couldn't help giving them some depth & motivation, almost in spite of herself. Draco's a perfect example of this IMO. In the 6th book, we learn how much he cares about his family, that he's not a killer, that he's scared & desperate about his appointed task. In the first 2/3 of DH, Draco continues the same character arc - he hates being w/Death Eaters, hates having to torture someone, & he won't identify the Trio. Then in the last 1/3 of the novel, Draco suddenly shows up in the ROR, he can't wait to capture Harry & he actively works to help LV. Why? Well, because the outline requires him to. If it doesn't make sense anymore for his character, oh well. JKR forced him back into his reprobate role that he had already outgrown. > Mike: > Is that Calvinism or a case of reaping what you've sown? With all the > references to Voldemort going beyond the bounds of *usual evil*, I > would say the latter. And still, Voldemort will have a chance to > repair himself if he feels some real remorse. Yes, I know, not even > remotely likely, but still it was there. And, had LV had a remorse > epiphany, would that only mean he could leave the "train station" for > Hell? I don't think that was the option, since it's not much of an > option. lizzyben: Well, according to JKR, we were *shown* that LV could repent because he had a drop of Harry's pure blood in him. Um, did you understand that from DH? I sure didn't - yet JKR thinks that we were shown this & we should all have reached that obvious conclusion. Right there that tells me that she's coming at this from a very, very different perspective. And that's what convinces me of her fundamentally Christian POV - she sees Harry's blood as the blood of Christ. The blood of Christ allows repentance & protects & saves believers from damnation. So, Harry's blood could do the same for LV. Once you accept the Harry=Christ analogy, her answer starts to make more sense. But of course the reprobate cannot be saved, because they are reprobate and will not receive the calling. In an earlier interview, she said that redemption was "not possible" for LV because he is a psychopath. He really had no choice at all - he was predestined for damnation. Mike: > So the most evil character in the book, the character that caused so > much death and destruction that he was beyond redemption could still > have saved himself from eternal... whatever... according to JKR's > formula. Yet you've decided that JKR *didn't* give him that option, > no matter how unlikely he would take it, because you've decided that > he was "damned" from birth. lizzyben: I didn't decide that. JKR decided that. Remember the orphanage lady saying LV was a "funny baby" who didn't cry or want to be held? And a child who killed rabbits. And a student who killed his family. Come on, now. JKR tells us quite clearly that LV was evil since birth. Because he comes from bad blood, you see. And that's not Calvinism, that's just JKR-ism. She combines "Calvinist reprobates," with "bad blood", and Nazis, and racists, and every other "bad" thing she can think of. Mike: > I'm not seeing how you can square this theory with canon. > > Mike lizzyben: Hope this helps explain my position somewhat. To be clear, I don't think that HP is some sort of perfect exposition of Calvinism, or that most Calvinists would agree w/or like what JKR did here. But I do think that JKR is expressing her own world-view, and her own individual interpretation of some Calvinist precepts. lizzyben From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 22 16:45:49 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:45:49 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177306 > Betsy Hp: > Hmm... Not on purpose I assure you. If anyone can point to the > Slytherin table cheering "We've got Malfoy!" or heck, the Gryffindor > table cheering "We've got Granger!" at Harry's Sorting... Or if > someone could point out the scene where Draco's hand is continuously > shaken by strangers thrilled with the chance to meet him... Or if > someone could point out a teacher falling off their chair because > they're so excited that Draco's in their classroom... Or if someone > could point out another student that has a top-of-the-line broom > purchased for them by Hogwarts... > > Then, yeah, I'll agree that it's just my *opinion* that people in the > WW are a bit more interested in the name "Harry Potter" than "Draco > Malfoy". Magpie: I'm trying to think of places where Draco's name is remarked upon, since Lucius--like many other adults--is known by other adults. Ron, for instance, also has a reputation attached to his name. Hagrid speaks of the general bad character that comes from Draco's blood, Fred or George identifies him as "Lucius Malfoy's son" and looks at him like he's something nasty on the bottom of a shoe, Barty Crouch as Moody could make a remark about his father. On the plus side, Umbridge mentions telling Lucius what a good boy Draco is. Slughorn seems like he should give Draco some positive attention due to his name, but makes a point of not doing that. Kreacher seems primed to like him because he's related to the Blacks. In general no, I see nothing comparitive to Harry's actual personal fame when he arrives at Hogwarts. Lucius' pull at the Ministry exists, but is also always undermined (Neville seems to have a better background, Lucius threatens the Board of Governors and then gets kicked off, he's put in jail...). In terms of family name Draco's basically in the same boat as Neville, only Draco's family seems to have bad stuff attached to it. Harry, otoh, seems to be the WW's main celebrity. He's an ordinary guy the way Brad Pitt is ordinary--iow, not at all, which is why he's got personal relationships with all the MoMs. Draco is actually far more ordinary--albeit wealthy. He's a good student, but not the best, a good Quidditch player, but no the best. He gets attention because he dances on tables and screams for it. If he shut his mouth he might have been one of the nameless hoards who know Harry's name without Harry knowing his. He does get himself a certain social status within his house, but he certainly seems to work for it. In terms of being popular in general, well, he can't be popular the way Harry is, can he? Or even Ron is? Because he's a Slytherin and they seem to be in their own world there. He does seem to get attention from other students when he makes loud comments, but that's it. And yes, of course I agree that being "popular" has nothing to do with being liked. Popular people are often resented terribly and can have as many "frenemies" as friends. I can't imagine anybody going through high school and knowing who the popular people were thinking these were people who were universally liked or never turned on by the school. They're turned on due to pent-up resentment of jealousy half the time--which is pretty much what happens to Harry. (Goodness, just look at the most "popular" person in HP-fandom--if anybody doesn't know who I'm talking about, suffice to say think of hundreds of anonymous people desperate to be her friend and just as many baying for blood as if this person killed their child.) I think any indication that he's some sort of nerd (one of new kinds of nerds who are cool sports heroes and not into nerd pursuits, apparently) is just due to nerds being hip at the moment. Nerds are natural underdogs and sometimes a shorthand for kind/tolerant/incapable of discriminating against. Nobody nowadays wants to be identified as the popular person. Naturally JKR threw some of that at Harry, even if she didn't give any of the real problems an actual nerd would have. Harry doesn't get picked for teams because Dudley artificially prevents it. Harry dresses funny pre-Hogwarts because the Dursleys impose bad taste on him. At Hogwarts he's socially skilled, physically acceptable and at 16 wildly popular so cool apparently he has to get the cool qualities of a nerd as well. Even Draco doesn't identify him as a nerd. On the contrary, he talks about him like the popular kid: Everybody thinks he's so great! He's not so great! Marvelous Potter with his scar and his broomstick! He's not even that good, he's just famous!" Yes, that would pretty much be the standard complaint about the BMOC from the Lesser MOC. It's lonely at the top and the bottom. Harry's at the top (a top so high it reaches out of his school into the celebrity world). -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 22 16:52:03 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 16:52:03 -0000 Subject: (Analyzing Draco In-Reply-To: <20070922084628.CUF79819@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177307 Sharon Hayes wrote: > I thought Ron's reaction to Crabbe's death and his reluctance to save Goyle and Draco to be quite reprehensible. it's perfectly understandable to want to be provocative, but when one pushes too far in that direction one is in danger of entering silly town. The only person who would feel grief over the death of someone who had just tried to murder him is someone in the grip of a severe mental illness. And yes Ron was a bit reluctant to risk his own life (who wouldn't be?), and he was even more reluctant to risk it to save two people who he knew to be terrible human beings; and yet reluctant as he was he did risk his life and he did save them. I have a hunch however that the only reason Ron did that was that he was worried if he did not Harry would probably kill himself trying to single-handily save both of them. If I were Ron I might risk my neck to save Harry, but not Goyle and Draco. Harry will risk his neck to save anyone, even a moral monster, but I do not count that as on of Harry's virtues. I can find much in 7 books to criticize Ron, but the above is not one of my complaints. I will however give you credit for originality, usually unfair criticism is directed at Harry or Hermione not Ron. Eggplant From mercia at ireland.com Sat Sep 22 17:23:24 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:23:24 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177308 > lizzyben: > > JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which was founded on > Calvinistic principles. The official Church doctrine is contained in a > document called the "Westminster Confession", which was written in > 1647 & remains church law. The Confession preaches double > predestination, salvation of the Elect, condemnation of the reprobate, > and the five points of TULIP. > she is a member of a > Calvinist church, and has stated that her religious beliefs will be > apparent in the last novel. I think it's reasonable to believe that > JKR's Calvinist/Protestant beliefs influenced the HP novels in the > same way that Tolkein's Catholicism influenced LOTR, or CS Lewis's > Anglican beliefs influenced Narnia. Why shouldn't it? I just have to offer a factual correction here, though I don't want to get into the debate about the Calvinist nature or otherwise of JKR's beliefs. JKR is not a member of a Calvinist church as she does not belong to the Church of Scotland but to an Episcopalian church in Scotland. I know that for a fact because some of my close friends are members of the same church. The Episcoplian church in Scotland is part of the Anglican Communion and she is as much an Anglican as C S Lewis. Theories built on the Westminister Confession are on dubious ground since she is not a member of a church subscribing to the Westminister Confession. People seem completely unable to distinguish between the Church of Scotland, which is Presbyterian though I am not sure it is always Calvinist, and the Episcoplian church in Scotland which is Anglican just as the Episcopalian church in America is. I speak as a fellow Anglican in a different part of the Anglican Communion and with no acceptance of Calvinist theology of predestination to eternal salvation or damnation. Mercia From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 22 17:38:47 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:38:47 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks - Butt Ugly vs Hollywood Handsome. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177309 It really doesn't matter if Harry was handsome or not, the important thing is that Harry had charisma. It was obvious this must be true from the Potter Watch pirate radio show; it was even more obvious in the Shell Cottage chapter, here we have a 17 year old boy giving orders to much older adults and his orders are being obeyed. As for the opposite sexes attraction to Harry, as Henry Kissinger said "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac". If you've got all that you don't need to be handsome. Eggplant From catlady at wicca.net Sat Sep 22 17:59:00 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 17:59:00 -0000 Subject: Myrtle and Olive (and Tulip) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177310 Lizzyben wrote in : << the entire Potterverse sort of encourages us to take the POV of the abuser rather than the victim. We're supposed to laugh at pathetic Moaning Myrtle, >> Moaning Myrtle Is pathetic -- she's clearly not a happy person, and I have been wondering if there is some way a ghost can resume passage to her 'next great adventure', in the hope she'll find some mental health improvement or soul healing there. But she's the victim of Tom Riddle and the basilisk, which whom the text never encouraged us to identify. I think we were supposed to feel sorry for the 13 year old girl who was suddenly and unexpectedly murdered. At the time of her death, she was crying because Olive Hornby teased her about her glasses. The live Myrtle may have been the victim of Olive the bully -- I think the text encourages us to take that view by analogy between Hermione hiding in the bathroom to cry when Ron was mean to her and Myrtle hiding in the bathroom to cry because Olive was mean to her. But after her death, Olive seems to have been the victim and Myrtle the abuser: "And then I came back again. I was determined to haunt Olive Hornby, you see. Oh, she was sorry she'd ever laughed at my glasses." (CoS, and, incidentally, a reason other than fear why some wizarding people become ghosts.) In GoF, Myrtle happily (!) gloats about bullying Olive: "Took them hours and hours to find my body ? I know, I was sitting there waiting for them. Olive Hornby came into the bathroom ? 'Are you in here again, sulking, Myrtle?' she said. 'Because Professor Dippet asked me to look for you ?' And then she saw my body ... ooooh, she didn't forget it until her dying day, I made sure of that ... followed her around and reminded her, I did, I remember at her brother's wedding ?" To the point that Olive got a restraining order against her: "? and then, of course, she went to the Ministry of Magic to stop me stalking her, so I had to come back here and live in my toilet." Lizzyben wrote in : << JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, which was founded on Calvinistic principles. The official Church doctrine is contained in a document called the "Westminster Confession", which was written in 1647 & remains church law. The Confession preaches double predestination, salvation of the Elect, condemnation of the reprobate, and the five points of TULIP. >> What does TULIP stand for? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 18:15:57 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:15:57 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177311 Mercia: > JKR is not a member of a Calvinist church as she does not belong to > the Church of Scotland but to an Episcopalian church in Scotland. I > know that for a fact because some of my close friends are members of > the same church. The Episcoplian church in Scotland is part of the > Anglican Communion and she is as much an Anglican as C S Lewis. > Theories built on the Westminister Confession are on dubious ground > since she is not a member of a church subscribing to the Westminister > Confession. ... I speak as a > fellow Anglican in a different part of the Anglican Communion and > with no acceptance of Calvinist theology of predestination to eternal > salvation or damnation. > > Mercia > lizzyben: Sorry, that's just not true. JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, as she has stated in many interviews. The Church of Scotland is not Anglican or Episcopalian, & it is not a branch of the Church of England. The COS does subscribe to the "Westminster Confession". Church of Scotland JKR has said in several interviews that she attends the Church of Scotland. Since she gave her daughter Jessica a copy of Jessica Mitford's Hons and Rebels for her "christening" gift, it may be inferred that Jessica was baptized in the Church of Scotland after JKR returned to the United Kingdom when Jessica was only three months old. One article explicitly says that Jessica Rowling was christened in an Edinburgh congregation of the Church of Scotland, though a specific church was not cited (WP1). http://www.hp-lexicon.org/muggle/encyc/muggle-c.html#chepstow "In Edinburgh, mother and daughter belonged to a Church of Scotland congregation. Jessica was christened there. At church Rowling met an older woman named Susan, "who's coming on to 70" and never married. "We were not 'dead certs' for friendship," The elderly woman would take care of Jessica for an afternoon and encourage Rowling to get out a little, kick up her heels, see an art show, do some window shopping. Instead, Rowling would find an empty table at a coffee shop and work on Harry Potter.... Rowling never showed Susan her work. "I was very very very insecure," she said. "I never showed anyone my writing." Her secret project was "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone," the first in the series. Weeks, Linton. "Charmed, I'm Sure," The Washington Post, October 20, 1999 http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-post-weeks.htm "Outlining these complexities, she speaks of some of her own beliefs and inspirations - including her involvement with the Church of Scotland..." ("Who hasn't met Harry?" Guardian Unlimited, February 16, 1999) http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0299-guardian-carey.htm "Interestingly, although Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, the books are free of references to God. On this point, Rowling is cagey. `Um. I don't think they're that secular,' she says, choosing her words slowly. `But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus' (Time Magazine, July 17, 2005). http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=22 "She's a member of the Church of Scotland and, whenever she's asked, says, "I believe in God, not magic." In fact, Rowling initially was afraid that if people were aware of her Christian faith, she would give away too much of what's coming in the series. "If I talk too freely about that," she told a Canadian reporter, "I think the intelligent reader -- whether ten [years old] or sixty -- will be able to guess what is coming in the books." (American Prospect, Feb, 25, 2002) http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=fantasia_the_gospel_according_to_cs_lewis From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 18:35:20 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 18:35:20 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177312 > >>Alla: > Notoriety, I think? Harry is well known, yes, but to me popular > means **likable** all the time... Betsy Hp: Ah. That's the mistake then. No, "popular" does *not* mean "likable". Actually, sometimes popular people are very much not likable (though sometimes they are). Which is probably why there's such a resistence to linking Harry with being a BMOC or popular. But *all* it takes to be considered popular or a BMOC is to be have the student body all know you, all have an opinion on you, and to have a certain amount of celebrity. All of this Harry has. Notoriety is actually a part of being popular or the BMOC. As I said previously. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > And when you look at what he actually experiences at school, > > Harry is treated like a BMOC. > >>Alla: > It is only your opinion Betsy. Betsy Hp: Taking into consideration the information above I think it's not really an opinion. Harry is a BMOC and that's a fact backed by his experiences at Hogwarts. Do newspaper articles get written about him? Does the student body have an opinon on Harry, do they know who he is? Is Harry considered a good athlete? Are students interested in what he gets up to? When there's a social event, are girls interested in being his date? The answer to all the above is yes. Ergo, Harry is a BMOC. It's as much a fact as his wearing glasses. > >>Alla: > I would like to ask you to please respect mine enough without > implying that JKR manipulates me. > Betsy Hp: Oh, I'm not implying. Seriously, the fact is Harry is a BMOC but *Harry* doesn't see himself that way. It's not a position he's interested in having. Therefore he doesn't think himself as BMOC, therefore readers can fool themselves into thinking he's not a BMOC. But he is. Therefore the idea that he's not a BMOC is the result of JKR manipulating her readers into seeing him as not a BMOC. It's the way she has us on the edge of our seats at the climax of the books: will Harry survive? Well, of course he will, he's the hero of the series, he's not going to get killed off in the graveyard in GoF. That Harry is the hero is a fact. But for the scene we believe, with Harry, that he's just a scared kid in the hands of of evil wizards. Because JKR manipulates us to see him as such. > >>Alla: > I mean, she is manipulating me but in a different sense that I > understood you to imply. She manipulates me in a sense that I > follow her story, that I enjoy it, etc, but it is not a > manipulation really, it is a good solid writing I love. > Betsy Hp: That's exactly the sort of manipulation I'm talking about. Just as it'd be boring for us to read about a "story-book hero" facing peril we know he's going to get out of (as he's the hero), it's boring watching the BMOC smear a regular guy. So JKR gets us to forget that Harry is better liked than Draco, that whenever they clash Harry wins, and that Harry has more people backing him up. That way we get that viseral "Yay!" when Harry beats Draco down. It's good writing on JKR's part, and that's the manipulation I'm talking about. (Of course, it didn't work on me, but I'm not saying it's because I'm smarter or anything. The Draco vs. Harry thing is more personal taste, I suspect. I know JKR meant for us to be turned off Draco in his first scene, but Draco pinged things I like. Which means my interpertation is subversive. Deeply subversive as of DH. ) > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > Draco is an underdog by virtue of being a Slytherin. He's a > > jewish boy in 1930's Germany. A black boy in 1830's USA. He's > > the outsider and the scapegoat of his world and that gets > > demonstrated to him (and us) by his being beat-down time and > > again. > > > > The above is my opinion of course. It's why I think these books > > are evil. > >>Alla: > Really? Okay, mine he is a hitler youth in fascist Hermany in > 1930s, somebody who was taught to hate jews and **others" since he > was a kid and went happily went on to try to implement what he was > taught when he was a kid, but when he got a taste of murder, he > realised that he just cannot swallow it. Betsy Hp: Frankly, the DA group echoed so much about the Hitler Youth to me it was a little bit scary. It's why I was hoping DH would redeem Hermione, for me. Unfortunately, it didn't. > >>Alla: > So, that is why I think those books are not evil among other > things, because anything to show how wrong what he stands for is, I > will applaud for. Betsy Hp: JKR did tie the Death Eaters to Nazis. And yes, Nazis are bad. Thanks for the reminder, Jo! But as far as the underlying *cause* to the rise of Nazism? She wrote us up a perfect little blueprint, IMO. Labeling a group as lesser than and evil and "bad guys" is the first step, and that's what the Slytherins are in the WW. It's vicious, ugly and evil, IMO. > >>Alla: > As I mentioned before, I knew quite a few little antisemits in my > youth, I hope that they all learned some lessons of how bad it is > to hate the people just because they are of different ethnicity, > but I am not holding my breath too much. > Betsy Hp: Just as the WW didn't learn to not judge a child at age eleven. Because in that universe, there is a group of people that are bad and evil and lesser than. Being an anti-Slytherin-ite is a good thing in Jo's world. Which is evil, IMO. Especially as this is something that apparently runs in families. That's "in the blood" as it were. Betsy Hp From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 19:04:37 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:04:37 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177313 > > >>Alla: > > I would like to ask you to please respect mine enough without > > implying that JKR manipulates me. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I'm not implying. Seriously, the fact is Harry is a BMOC > but *Harry* doesn't see himself that way. It's not a position he's > interested in having. Therefore he doesn't think himself as BMOC, > therefore readers can fool themselves into thinking he's not a BMOC. > But he is. Therefore the idea that he's not a BMOC is the result of > JKR manipulating her readers into seeing him as not a BMOC. > Alla: So, let me be sure I understand. You are absolutely sure that Harry is BMOC and the readers who see it differently just fooling themselves with JKR help. And the purpose of this debate is what? For you to proclaim over and over again that your interpretation is a fact? Thank you, I think I understand your position. I am going to answer one more point below because it is a missinterpetation of my words, which I do not wish to be left unanswered and I will try to be done with this debate. > > >>Alla: > > I mean, she is manipulating me but in a different sense that I > > understood you to imply. She manipulates me in a sense that I > > follow her story, that I enjoy it, etc, but it is not a > > manipulation really, it is a good solid writing I love. > > > > Betsy Hp: > That's exactly the sort of manipulation I'm talking about. Just as > it'd be boring for us to read about a "story-book hero" facing peril > we know he's going to get out of (as he's the hero), it's boring > watching the BMOC smear a regular guy. So JKR gets us to forget that > Harry is better liked than Draco, that whenever they clash Harry > wins, and that Harry has more people backing him up. That way we get > that viseral "Yay!" when Harry beats Draco down. It's good writing > on JKR's part, and that's the manipulation I'm talking about. > > (Of course, it didn't work on me, but I'm not saying it's because I'm > smarter or anything. The Draco vs. Harry thing is more personal > taste, I suspect. I know JKR meant for us to be turned off Draco in > his first scene, but Draco pinged things I like. Which means my > interpertation is subversive. Deeply subversive as of DH. ) Alla: And **I** was not talking of this sort of manipulation that you are claiming at all. I was simply equaling this "manipulation" with any sort of good writing. It is as if you would say that Tolstoy "manipulates" me to like Prince Andrew, while I would say that he is simply writing the terrific character and in many ways cool person and while I understand why Natasha character betrayed him, I am fully and completely with Andrew and have a massive sympathy for him. What you claim as manipulation, I call just a writing and the ideas that resonate with me. I believe that I have reasons to see Draco as bad guy, as very bad child , as disgusting teenager, and that is why I cannot stand him. I believe that my dislike of somebody who wants the muggleborns to die is **objective** and somebody whom I would not spare a minute of my time in RL. After he would proclaim his views of course. Or it is as if you would say that Dostoevsky **manipulates** me into liking Raskolnikov. I did not mean that JKR manipulates me in hating Draco at all, I was talking about her writing in general. JMO, Alla From mercia at ireland.com Sat Sep 22 19:56:13 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 19:56:13 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177314 > lizzyben: > > Sorry, that's just not true. JKR is a member of the Church of > Scotland, as she has stated in many interviews. The Church of Scotland > is not Anglican or Episcopalian, & it is not a branch of the Church of > England. The COS does subscribe to the "Westminster Confession". > > Church of Scotland > JKR has said in several interviews that she attends the Church of > Scotland. Since she gave her daughter Jessica a copy of Jessica > Mitford's Hons and Rebels for her "christening" gift, it may be > inferred that Jessica was baptized in the Church of Scotland after JKR > returned to the United Kingdom when Jessica was only three months old. .accio-quote.org/articles/1999/0299-guardian-carey.htm Your references are very comprehensive and persuasive, but all I can say is that I do know the exact church involved, have been there several times, and that it is definitely Episcopalian. Though as I also know she does want to keep exactly which congregation she attends secret so that she have some semblance of normal life, I had better leave it at that. Mercia From catlady at wicca.net Sat Sep 22 20:16:43 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 20:16:43 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177315 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "meglet2" wrote: << Your references are very comprehensive and persuasive, but all I can say is that I do know the exact church involved, have been there several times, and that it is definitely Episcopalian. Though as I also know she does want to keep exactly which congregation she attends secret so that she have some semblance of normal life, I had better leave it at that. >> I am under the impression that here in USA, people often choose to join a congregation that is Methodist or Lutheran or Presbyterian or United Church of Christ or Episcopalian because the building is conveniently located or the Sunday School meets at convenient times, and they like the people in the congregation and/or the minister, without regard to the specific beliefs that supposedly distinguish one denomination from another. So it seems possible that Rowling joined a congregation that happened to be a Church of Scotland congregation without giving much thought to Calvinist theology and later left that congregation and joined a different congregation that happened to be Anglican, still without giving much thought to the specific theology. She might have changed congregations for geographical convenience after moving house. From wynnleaf at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 20:56:31 2007 From: wynnleaf at yahoo.com (wynnleaf fair) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:56:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <549520.39053.qm@web58408.mail.re3.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177316 I haven't posted in a long while, but this thing about HP and Calvinism is making me post. First, I'm a very strong Calvinist and I know my theology backward and forward, having, among other degrees, an undergrad degree in Biblical Studies from a college that teaches within Calvinist doctrine, and having studied under some of the best teachers of Calvinism in the 20th century. The idea, as I understand it, is that the characters in Slytherin are "ordained" to be in Slytherin and are reprobate. That is, nothing they can do can make them "good." Characters in Gryffindor are "ordained" to be in Gryffindor and are therefore "the chosen" and are always considered "good," no matter what they do. The idea that being "chosen" means that it doesn't matter what you do, or how bad your actions are, you're still counted among the "good" just because you're chosen is actually considered antinomianism and is generally considered a heresy, even in Reformed (Calvinist) churches. In Calvinism, the basic idea about actions is that if you're chosen by grace, then your *heart* is changed. The focus is on heart change, not outward affilliation. If a person was first thought to have been chosen, but no corresponding change of heart was detected (generally through the person's actions and choices), then one would begin to seriously question whether the person were "chosen" at all. So, if true Calvinism were really being played out symbolically in the HP series, I would think that someone would start to wonder why the supposed "good guys" were showing no greater goodness of heart than the bad guys. Many people outside of Calvinism assume that the belief is more organized around outward affiliation. The "chosen" people all are identified by their verbal affiliation whereas what they actually do, how they act, the kind of people they are, doesn't make any difference. But although common, that is a complete misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. In reality, the sign of "election" is a changed heart. Evidence of a changed heart and election is "made sure" by actions and choices that exemplify the state of the heart, not by claiming affiliation with a certain group. If the HP series truly does send the message that being in Gryffindor makes you "good" or being in Slytherin makes you "bad," yet the actions and choices of the two do not reflect this, then that is *not* Calvinism, but antinomianism. Do I think JKR, would consciously write something supporting that doctrinal position? Absolutely not. wynnleaf From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 22:58:45 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:58:45 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177317 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > -- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > > I personally never in my life imagined Harry as handsome. > Allie: > For some reason, I have this idea in my head that Harry became > better-looking as he got older. If you look at the book covers, > he's drawn to be more attractive in the later books, so maybe the > artist has the same idea. Or, maybe I got that idea from the book > covers. :) zanooda: Hi, Allie! If the book covers affect you like this, you must really love the new cover art for the Ukrainian HP translation. Harry is incredibly handsome there! I find it strange though that the artists seem to copy Movie!Harry appearance. Don't they have their own imagination? Anyway, as Handsome!Harry believer, you should enjoy these covers :-)! You probably already saw them, but just in case: http://gallery.the-leaky-cauldron.org/picture/188076 From cottell at dublin.ie Sat Sep 22 23:13:55 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 23:13:55 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: <549520.39053.qm@web58408.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177318 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, wynnleaf fair wrote: > The idea, as I understand it, is that the characters in Slytherin > are "ordained" to be in Slytherin and are reprobate. That is, > nothing they can do can make them "good." Exactly. That is what we are shown. Slytherin, from the founder who put the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets to devour Muggle-borns on down, are bad. Regulus repents and dies, and is only a cipher anyway, and Slughorn is less evil than venal, but the message is clear. The other "Good Slytherin" is a horrible error, of whom more below. > Characters in Gryffindor are "ordained" to be in Gryffindor and > are therefore "the chosen" and are always considered "good," no > matter what they do. Exactly. As has been explored on this board in some detail, the Gryffindors do a lot of morally suspect acts, but we're led to cheer them. > The idea that being "chosen" means that it doesn't matter what > you do, or how bad your actions are, you're still counted among > the "good" just because you're chosen is actually considered > antinomianism and is generally considered a heresy, even in > Reformed (Calvinist) churches. > So, if true Calvinism were really being played out symbolically > in the HP series, I would think that someone would start to wonder > why the supposed "good guys" were showing no greater goodness of > heart than the bad guys. But that really does, to this reader at least, once I stepped back, seem to be what's going on. I started to wonder. Your insights show that calling this Calvinist is a category error, but the moral problems shown by the White Hats still persist. > If the HP series truly does send the message that being in > Gryffindor makes you "good" or being in Slytherin makes you "bad," > yet the actions and choices of the two do not reflect this, then > that is *not* Calvinism, but antinomianism. Do I think JKR, would > consciously write something supporting that doctrinal position? > Absolutely not. Mus's longer response: Wynnleaf, thank you so much for that extremely informative post. It clarified for me a lot of issues, and sent me off to look up antinomianism. I agree - your description of Calvinism doesn't chime at all with what I and some others here (though clearly not all) regard as the central problem with the Potter heptology. Since you are clearly much better informed than (at least) me, it seems that we're using the wrong term. Wikipedia gives the following definition of antinomianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinomianism) * Antinomianism (from the Greek ????, "against" + ?????, "law"), or * lawlessness (in the Greek Bible: ??????, which is "unlawful"), in * theology, is the idea that members of a particular religious group * are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality as * presented by religious authorities. Antinomianism is the polar * opposite of legalism, the notion that obedience to a code of * religious law is necessary for salvation. For this poster, this rings rather true to what I read in the books, especially in HBP and DH. Using Unforgiveable Curses, tricking goblins, identity theft, the use of dark magic and so on by the White Hats seems to be the assertion that they are under no obligation to behave in a certain manner, specifically one that differentiates them from the Black Hats. It's also interesting, in a sociological sense, that antinomianism seems to be a charge to lay against one's opponents, rather than a position to which to adhere. The sorting of children at the age of eleven into houses, and the subsequent repeated identification of one of those houses as inherently bad is predestination. When a character does something that is undeniably good, then we are expressly told, not that some Slytherins was capable of great love, bravery and sacrifice, but that he was in the wrong house to begin with. In other words, Slytherins are predestined to be bad, but the Hat sometimes makes a mistake. That's a truly extraordinary message. You see, I would have no problem with a genuinely predestined WW, with inherently bad and inherently good houses (or characters). It mightn't make for a particularly interesting story, but it would be internally coherent. My problem arises when the message that the sorting gives, that Dumbledore gives us when he talks of being sorted too soon, is in direct and canon contrast with what the author has told us is the central point of the moral arc - that our choices make us what we are. In other words, we're shown predestination, and we're told individual choice. We're told individual choice and we're handed a villain who had none from the womb. And to confound me (us?) further, in the final book, right after HBP has rammed home Voldemort's ineluctable development as Evil Personified, we're given Harry's dilemma over whether to pursue the Hallows or not. In other words, it's all been decided long ago, but here's an interpolated choice (apart from as that interpolation, I don't think the Hallows have any real significance - the Cloak remains a plot device for allowing our hero to get into places he wouldn't otherwise be able to, the Stone is irrelevant, and only the Wand has any real importance). When Dumbledore said that choice makes us who we are, he was lying: the Hat decides who we are. I'm struggling to come up with any good examples of a character with a changed heart. Dumbledore might seem a candidate, but then he tells us that his apparent goodness was weakness (and I'm inclined to believe him). Percy or Regulus, perhaps, but they are both too secondary (and the the narrative function of the latter really seems only to have been there to get the locket out of the cave). Malfoy's heart doesn't change: he's still an arrogant little toerag, just an arrogant little toerag who wasn't really up to the task and whose power base was removed. His "curt nod" is an expression of submission. Your post has convinced me that this is not a Calvinist universe. But the question then remains: what sort of a moral universe is it? It's not strictly antinomian either, because of all that guff about choice. The sad answer seems to be that it's an ill-thought-out mess. And as Le Guin said, rather a mean-spirited one. Do I think that she was consciously writing an antinomian text? Absolutely not. But I don't think that she ever decided what the parameters of her imagined moral universe were, and in a series which is expressly about the battle between good and evil, that is a crucial and lethal flaw. For this reader, at least. Mus, who'll be really astonished if the bits of Greek survive - yay for the software if they do! From chrj.smit at yahoo.com Sat Sep 22 13:23:58 2007 From: chrj.smit at yahoo.com (Chris Smith) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 06:23:58 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <50534.95378.qm@web45509.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177319 > Betsy Hp: > So while Draco and Snape both acknowledge that as Slytherins > they are lesser than and evil, and Snape is even given the > opportunity to "convert" (Dumbledore's 'sort too early' comment), > they are still amongst the damned. zgirnius: As far as acknowledging that he is 'lesser than'...lesser than who? I do not recall his acknowledging himself to be 'lesser than' anyone, humility does not seem a prominent character trait of Severus Snape, to me anyway. chrj.smit: Me either, he seems to never have any weak qualities. JKR wrote his character throughout the books most ingeniously. In past books, Severus is cunning, cruel, and slightly vindictive (Although I'm sure we'll have some differing opinions in here). From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 23 02:39:06 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:39:06 -0400 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177320 Anent what happened to Draco on the train at the end of GOF, if a person were to walk into the Jewish Community Center and say, "Hitler had the right idea!" or walk down the street of an African-American neighborhood wrapped in a white sheet and waiving the Confederate battle flag, wouldn't you say that whatever happened to him was something he brought on himself? IMHO, what Draco said was very much in the same vein. And it wasn't as though they were laying in wait to ambush him--it was a spontaneous reaction. 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 poorna05 at yahoo.co.in Sun Sep 23 06:00:23 2007 From: poorna05 at yahoo.co.in (pooja khurana) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 07:00:23 +0100 (BST) Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? Message-ID: <746165.4094.qm@web7911.mail.in.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177321 The soul connection breaks the 1st time between Harry and LV but they are still bound by blood.I percieved that LV was killed inspite of the blood protection as he had the sacrifical blood in him. Harry's mother sacrificed herself, Harry himself sacrificed to save the wizard world and now it was LV turn to sacrifice himself unknowingly though. It is in the nature of that blood to sacrifice itself. Also we cannot overlook this fact that now Harry is the master of the hallows cannot be killed at all no matter what. The elder wand cannot be used against Harry as he is the rightful master of it. The stone he uses not to bring dead back to life but to help him come to terms with his own death. Cloak has become a part of his life and he has become the master of deathly hallows.But according to the profecy one has to die.Though it is really difficult to overpower Voldemort by just expelliarmus but as the wand belongs to Harry he disarms Voldemort and the spell spoken by Voldemort rebounds back on him.The blood connection adds to the destruction of LV. The master of the 3 hallows that is Harry has become immortal and Voldemort is mortal so it is natural that Harry would survive the killing curse again. LV who is always in constant fear of death without his horcruxes and being the possessor of sacrifical blood now dies and his plan of overpowering the enemy by taking his blood brings his downfall. So Harry's blood increased the chances of LV to die as in HP4 Dumbledore smiles when he comes to know that Harry's blood has been taken. Pooja. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 12:49:07 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 08:49:07 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709230549o665db4d9ob5a0c57f76006687@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177322 Magpie: I will just forever be confused as to this scene (though generally I was always a bit confused when Draco showed up in DH) since she just showed us a scene where Draco is in the exact same situation, where turning Harry over to LV will save his family, and he won't/can't do it himself. Nothing happens after that that gives him any reason to change in the direction of wanting Harry turned over, and indeed JKR doesn't quite write him as having done that. Crabbe's not only not following Draco's orders, he seems to be doing the ordering. Draco's behind him, not taunting anyone. Harry laughs at the whole situation of Draco being there with the wands etc. It's like Draco's personality has been purged or split. His "evil" side, the DE, has been removed and put into Crabbe, who's then burned. Draco is left rudderless and confused (where I thought he was at the end of HBP and thought would get over in DH). The only trouble for me is that his being in the RoR seems too active for him. I guess the motivation that makes sense to me given the state Draco seems to be in in the book is to believe that Draco merely stayed behind to opt out in general and when the Trio popped up in front of them Crabbe decided to follow. It *would* go along with the motivations we've seen Draco have if he then followed them to try to prevent Harry being killed, only because the one overriding motivation Draco *does* seem to have is a repulsion for violence and murder. He's not *compeltely* self-preservation based, or he'd have run out of the RoR with Crabbe. So I can imagine that he felt both pushed to follow Crabbe due to his current trait for two reasons: a) the former "spoiled child" has lost a lot of his ability to assert himself against Voldemort, and if Crabbe pointed out that a real DE would follow Harry to get him he might follow b) he *might* have a problem knowing what Crabbe and Goyle might do, both because killing Harry would get his parents in trouble and because we know he doesn't want Harry dead. Debbie: I read a greater level of confidence (despite his hovering in the background behind Crabbe and Goyle) in Draco's actions than we saw him exhibit at Malfoy Manor. There, he is very tentative and visibly scared. In the RoR, first tries to take control of the scene with his comment that Harry has his wand. When Crabbe takes over and begins throwing curses, Draco jumps into action to thwart him. I think Draco decided not to leave Hogwarts with the Slytherins for fear that he would be led right back to Voldemort, and he clearly wanted out of the DE agenda or he would not have hesitated to make identifications at Malfoy Manor. Whether he suggested to Crabbe and Goyle that they search for Potter or whether Crabbe decided to go off on a vigilante mission is not clear, but he felt compelled to stick with them, as you say, because Crabbe (and presumably Goyle as well) was clearly too enthralled with the power of the UCs at that point. What Draco did was clearly the right thing. He protected Harry (and indirectly, his parents) and he protected his friends. I think one of the problems with the scene is that it's difficult for us to adjust our own expectations of Draco's actions, so our first reaction is to take statements such as Draco's admonition to keep Harry alive for Voldemort at face value. It's only later that we realize it's the same tactic Snape used on the DEs during The Flight of the Prince in HBP. I also think there may be a bit of misdirection in the scene (as Crabbe includes Draco in the *we* who decided to hang back to bring Harry to Voldemort), to keep us a bit off-guard as to the Malfoys' intentions in general and to give Narcissa's later lie to Voldemort a greater Bang factor. Debbie who really does think Draco has redeemed himself [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 23 16:28:56 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:28:56 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177323 > Magpie: > No, he wasn't. It's easy not to be clear on this because he's there > when they go, but Narcissa says he's there during Easter break. I > was confused about this too, but it appears that Draco was actually > a student at school during the year--I kept thinking he was at the > Manor and then would realize I was wrong! Jen: Draco attending school went completely over my head. I didn't catch that because Draco's not mentioned by Neville or noticed by Harry in the Great Hall scene. The three of them are in the Great Hall, right? Crabbe says, "We 'ung back, Potter. We decided not to go..." I thought Crabbe meant he and Goyle (and now I'll add in Draco) hung back during the evacuation. I guess they could've hung back from going to the Great Hall but that reads like a hole to me if none of the teachers noticed a known DE student and his two friends, who are proficient at torturing, didn't appear. More of a hole than Harry not making mention of them in the Great Hall anyway. Now I can't picture what Draco was doing at school. He's shown 'terrified' to be torturing for Voldemort; I can't imagine him taking any pleasure or interest in using Crucio against his fellow students although it would be expected of him. This leaves a blank as to how Draco handled his time at Hogwarts. He's still sympathetic to me but it would have been more interesting to read how Draco worked out his mixed feelings about having to appear as a DE when he no longer wanted that life. Magpie > That line you quoted always stuck with me, with Draco being cut off > about the diadem, I guess because I was confused as to what exactly > he was up to and it just seemed like I couldn't be sure what he > really thought about the diadem either. > > If you look at his lines I *think* most of them *on the surface* > are in-line with Harry, even though presumably he's there working > against him. I mean that if you look at what he's saying > it's "Don't kill him/no no no/you might hurt the diadem..." The one > pro-Voldemort thing I remember is "The Dark Lord wants him > alive..." which explains how he could protect him and be following > LV, but the only other DE who's focused on keeping Harry alive is > Snape--and we know by now that Draco isn't a "true" DE by that > point anyway. He also physically keeps Crabbe from cursing. Debbie: > I think one of the problems with the scene is that it's difficult > for us to adjust our own expectations of Draco's actions, so our > first reaction is to take statements such as Draco's admonition to > keep Harry alive for Voldemort at face value. Jen: I caught the similarity between what Draco said and Snape, and I believe he's there to keep Crabbe and Goyle from torturing or killing. I didn't read he's *really* there to take Harry to Voldemort since he seems to be attempting to get away from LV himself. Now that I know Draco was at the school observing Crabbe/Goyole, it's more clear why he would see them as a legitimate threat to the Trio. Mostly I don't understand how to fit the diadem in the picture. Draco's interested in it, wants to tell Crabbe something and is cut off. Debbie: > I think Draco decided not to leave Hogwarts with the Slytherins for > fear that he would be led right back to Voldemort, and he clearly > wanted out of the DE agenda or he would not have hesitated to make > identifications at Malfoy Manor. Jen: I agree with all you're saying. Again for me it's how to fit the diadem in the Draco story. What about this option? Draco is trying to get away from LV and the only way he can do so is to pretend he's on this mission with Crabbe/Goyle. He's trying to run interference in the ROR, keep Crabbe/Goyle from actually doing any damage without blowing that he's no longer a real DE or Voldemort sympathizer. So he seizes on the diadem thing in the hopes of distracting Crabbe from what appears to be *his* mission - capture or kill Harry. It's not really something Draco wants for himself or to take back to LV, he doesn't know what it is, but it's a diversion at least. Draco's typically portrayed as quick on the uptake when it comes to sussing things out. Magpie: > It seems like JKR sees Draco worthy of some forgiveness--I haven't > read The Little White Horse for a while, but I have this vague idea > that he might be somebody like the dog Wiggins in that book who's > kind of dreadful but basically just a silly dog. I will just > forever be confused as to this scene (though generally I was always > a bit confused when Draco showed up in DH) since she just showed us > a scene where Draco is in the exact same situation, where turning > Harry over to LV will save his family, and he won't/can't do it > himself. > He's not *compeltely* self-preservation based, or he'd have run out > of the RoR with Crabbe. So I can imagine that he felt both pushed > to follow Crabbe due to his current trait for two reasons: a) the > former "spoiled child" has lost a lot of his ability to assert > himself against Voldemort, and if Crabbe pointed out that a real DE > would follow Harry to get him he might follow b) he *might* have a > problem knowing what Crabbe and Goyle might do, both because > killing Harry would get his parents in trouble and because we know > he doesn't want Harry dead. Jen: An idea is forming that I want to try out, especially if Draco saw the diadem as a way out, a much lesser offense than abducting or killing Harry. Say JKR's going for the idea that each generation does a little more than the one before. The Marauders and Snape didn't ever come to see each other in a new way before all died, and Lucius wasn't capable of defying Voldemort until after he'd participated in some really bad stuff and the tide change placed him out of Voldemort's favor. Harry and Draco appear to have more sympathy for each other at this point than James and Snape ever had (course there's not a girl in the middle of it), and Draco didn't go very far down the road as a DE before realizing it was a horrible life. He'd already surpassed Lucius on the tower as the 'better man' and like you said, showed more than self-interest in the ROR. By 17 or 18, Draco's already aware that while he can't get out of the life he's in, he doesn't have to go along completely. He's much more like Narcissa in that respect. After his lifetime of programming that's a pretty big leap imo. Plus, I'm noticing some similarities to the Prank now on the outside of that scene. Draco's ostensibly following Harry to get him into trouble and Harry ends up saving Draco's life. But that's where any possible parallel ends because Draco's not looking for a way to seek revenge on the Trio and instead seems to be there to save Harry's life or prevent something bad happening to him at least. And Harry's saving him only because Draco stops to try to save Goyle and gets stuck; Draco could have saved himself and gotten out of the room. These two are doing a much better job as individuals and with each other than James and Snape were capable of imo. One last thing, this moment really moved me for a reason I can't quite sort out yet: "I virtually lived in the Room of Hidden Things all last year," said Malfoy, his voice brittle. "I know how to get in." I think it had to do with Draco's 'brittle' voice. It's not Draco 'triumphant' over Harry or angry with Harry or Harry-focused at all, which was his primary role in the story until HBP. HBP's still the story when Draco turned the tables on Harry, the story when Harry became the one obsessed with Draco for the first time. Draco's the one who had to grow up fast, first, before Harry realized what was at stake. Harry's still playing out their old roles in the ROR scene, "he could not believe that he was this close, and was going to be thwarted by Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle." (chap. 31, p. 629) Draco's the one who's actually changed in the scene, you know? I think that's what struck me about that moment. Jen From jeanine.banthorpe at btinternet.com Sun Sep 23 15:59:29 2007 From: jeanine.banthorpe at btinternet.com (jeanine5715) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:59:29 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177324 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: > > Carol wrote: > > Or is there a "water" trait that would work better and create a > more equal balance with courage, intelligence, and loyalty? What > would a Slytherin modeled on Snape at one end of the spectrum and > Slughorn on the other hand value? What would define the new, non-DE, > no bigoted ideal Slytherin? Jeanine: Yes there is indeed a "water" trait that would create a more equal balance with courage, intelligence and loyalty and it is LOVE. Love encompasses compassion and sacrifice. These are qualities that Professor Snape displayed to a high degree. A motto often associated with "water" traits is "I feel". Those individuals who can truly feel, who can empathise, sympathise, and understand, are so often those who are the greatest amongst us. The outstanding example of undemanding love set by Profesor Snape forms an appropriate justification for the adoption of Love as the defining quality / trait of future Slytherins. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 23 16:44:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:44:45 -0000 Subject: Back to Slytherin House (Was: Ending WAS : Compassionate hero) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177325 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jeanine5715" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" > wrote: > > > > Carol wrote: > > > > Or is there a "water" trait that would work better and create a > > more equal balance with courage, intelligence, and loyalty? What > > would a Slytherin modeled on Snape at one end of the spectrum and > > Slughorn on the other hand value? What would define the new, non- DE, > > no bigoted ideal Slytherin? > Jeanine: > Yes there is indeed a "water" trait that would create a more equal > balance with courage, intelligence and loyalty and it is LOVE. Love > encompasses compassion and sacrifice. These are qualities that > Professor Snape displayed to a high degree. A motto often associated > with "water" traits is "I feel". Those individuals who can truly > feel, who can empathise, sympathise, and understand, are so often > those who are the greatest amongst us. The outstanding example of > undemanding love set by Profesor Snape forms an appropriate > justification for the adoption of Love as the defining quality / > trait of future Slytherins. Magpie: Snape displayed a high degree of love and compassion? He's not a character I would see as demonstrating much of either. Sacrifice he does, but no, I don't see Snape showing much empathy or sympathizing or understanding except sometimes in a negative way where his understanding gives him the right way to wound people. Snape was cruel and mean throughout canon. He loved Lily and sacrificed for her. That seemed to be the way love was usually demonstrated by Slytherins--they have personal loves for specific people without reaching the level of someone anyone would describe as loving. I mean, if anybody was using Snape as their model of love, they'd be in trouble. He starts off challenged in that area and while his love for Lily leads him to heroism and bravery, it doesn't seem to open his heart and make him loving when he has the chance. -m From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sun Sep 23 16:49:15 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:49:15 -0000 Subject: Calvinism?! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177326 I think those trying to paint JKR as a deeply religious person or even a Calvinist are perhaps engaging in a little wishful thinking. Regarding book 7 she said, "my belief and my struggling with religious belief, and so on, I think is quite apparent in this book". When asked what her struggle was, Rowling responded, "Well my struggle really is to keep believing". I think you also need to consider the fact that she almost certainly softened her words to make them more palatable to the masses. Eggplant From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 23 17:01:30 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 23 Sep 2007 17:01:30 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/23/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1190566890.23.18643.m47@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177327 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 23, 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 elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 19:26:49 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 15:26:49 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: References: <549520.39053.qm@web58408.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709231226s2c6d213dsed635f16ec98de03@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177328 Mus: Slytherin, from the founder who put the Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets to devour Muggle-borns on down, are bad. Regulus repents and dies, and is only a cipher anyway, and Slughorn is less evil than venal, but the message is clear. The other "Good Slytherin" is a horrible error, of whom more below. Debbie: While there are definitely elements of the depiction of Slytherins in HP that raise my hackles, having followed these threads quietly for some months now, I have to say that I still can't wrap my arms around the notion that the Slytherins were bad from the get-go, as opposed to having been co-opted by Voldemort. Admittedly, their pureblood ethos made them ripe for stealing, but I can't buy that they were all bad. What about Theodore Nott? His father is a DE and we've never seen him even hanging out with the other Slyths. And what about Phineas Nigellus Black? I rather like the guy, and the worst thing Sirius can say about him is that he was the "least popular Headmaster Hogwarts ever had." Headmasters aren't elected by popular vote of the students, and they're not in office to do the students' will. I'll bet he was unpopular. He didn't take any guff from the students, didn't let them "be tragically misunderstood, wallow in self-pity, stew in their own --" but this is a far from evil thing to do. There's no evidence that he didn't support Dumbledore's agenda 100%. (His reluctance to be awakened when Arthur is injured in OOP has everything to do, IMO, with the fact that he has to deal with runaway Sirius than with any Slytherin-ish agenda. I believe the evidence supports the conclusion that Slytherin's anti-muggle bias made Riddle's takeover easier, but that there were plenty of good Slyths before Riddle used it as a recruiting device. Mus: As has been explored on this board in some detail, the Gryffindors do a lot of morally suspect acts, but we're led to cheer them. Debbie: I see this in part as a POV issue. Harry is the protagonist, and we know his cause is right; even if we didn't think Voldemort was a psychopath, he's gone way too far and must be stopped. We're undoubtedly meant to read the books with his own blinders on. I actually do have a problem with some of the things the Gryffindors have done throughout the series, but that concern is largely divorced from my opinion of the Slytherins because many of the incidents (the pig's tail, ton-tongue toffees, *sneak* pimples) don't involve Slytherins at all and some of the ones that do involve Slytherins involve other houses (the hexing of Draco in OOP). Mus: Using Unforgiveable Curses, tricking goblins, identity theft, the use of dark magic and so on by the White Hats seems to be the assertion that they are under no obligation to behave in a certain manner, specifically one that differentiates them from the Black Hats. It's also interesting, in a sociological sense, that antinomianism seems to be a charge to lay against one's opponents, rather than a position to which to adhere. Debbie: I thought Harry got his comeuppance from Griphook when he took the sword and shouted "Thieves, thieves!" In spite of the stakes for Our Heroes, I was pleased with Griphook's actions. As for the identity theft, I tend to write some of this off as justifiable tactics in wartime. The Trio are more like secret agents than regular law enforcement, so the rules of engagement would seem to be those of spying rather than the usual code of conduct. Mus: The sorting of children at the age of eleven into houses, and the subsequent repeated identification of one of those houses as inherently bad is predestination. When a character does something that is undeniably good, then we are expressly told, not that some Slytherins was capable of great love, bravery and sacrifice, but that he was in the wrong house to begin with. In other words, Slytherins are predestined to be bad, but the Hat sometimes makes a mistake. That's a truly extraordinary message. Debbie: The Hat says it never makes a mistake, and Snape didn't want to be in Gryffindor anyway. Perhaps Snape could have been a Gryffindor, but he would not have been. And in an earlier era, he would not have been a DE in training, either. Dumbledore's remark that perhaps they sort too soon showed his own pro-Gryffindor bias, in addition to the knowledge of Voldemort's influence on the Slytherins of his generation. It did not show that the Hat was wrong; in fact, without Snape's cunning, Dumbledore could not have succeeded in his agenda. In any event, as Dumbledore's background demonstrates, there were plenty of Dark Arts conspiracies outside of Slytherin that could have pulled Snape in. In fact, by the time we read Dumbledore's comment, we know that Dumbledore is not the epitome of goodness, but rather a flawed human being who came dangeously close to becoming a Dark Lord himself, without any Slytherin influence. What saved him was a family tragedy, not anything to do with his House. Nevertheless, in spite of Slytherin being poison to Snape's generation, Voldemort's house, Snape was redeemed, which undermines the theory that Slytherins are inherently evil. They are no more evil than Gryffindors, although I acknowledge that Snape's generation had more temptations than most. Mus: My problem arises when the message that the sorting gives, that Dumbledore gives us when he talks of being sorted too soon, is in direct and canon contrast with what the author has told us is the central point of the moral arc - that our choices make us what we are. In other words, we're shown predestination, and we're told individual choice. We're told individual choice and we're handed a villain who had none from the womb. Debbie: Actually, Dumbledore said that our choices *show* who we really are. And if I'm reading Wynnleaf correctly, that *is* essentially Calvinist doctrine. We will know the elect by the nature of their actions and not by their affiliations. There is no reason to assume that a fully redeemed Snape cannot be one of the elect, or that Cormac MacLaggen, for example, must be one because he is a Gryffindor. Harry is a member of the elect because when push comes to shove, he chooses -- over and over again -- to sacrifice himself for the greater good. Voldemort, I think, presents the essential dilemma of Calvinist philosophy. He is a creature without the gifts -- most particularly of empathy -- that would allow him to become the elect, yet my understanding is that he is held responsible for failing to make the choices that would show him to be one of the elect. But the reason he must be stopped is not because he is not one of the elect; it's because he's too dangerous to society as a whole. And those who make league with him -- in this case, much of Slytherin house -- must be stopped, too. Unless, of course, they repent and betray the doer of evil. I take a great deal of comfort from the fact that the Malfoys, who were up to their eyeballs in Voldemort's tea party, went unpunished because of what they did, or did not do, in the final battle. Mus: I don't think the Hallows have any real significance - the Cloak remains a plot device for allowing our hero to get into places he wouldn't otherwise be able to, the Stone is irrelevant, and only the Wand has any real importance). When Dumbledore said that choice makes us who we are, he was lying: the Hat decides who we are. Debbie: This reply is mostly off the topic, but the Stone is quite relevant. Harry once again demonstrates his own purity of heart ( I suppose you could say that he justifies his status as one of the elect despite his manifold sins) by his use of the Stone. Unlike past users, and in contrast to his own desire -- emphasized throughout the series -- for his dead family, he does not use the Stone to keep what he has lost. He summons the dead, but only to draw the courage on a walk to his own death. Once he reaches that point, he lets go and faces death on his own. Even more importantly, at King's Cross he chooses to return to life and ultimately decides to leave the Stone in the Forbidden Forest. Like the Philosopher's Stone, Harry is a worthy master of this Stone because he does not use it for his own happiness, but uses it for the benefit of all. Mus: I'm struggling to come up with any good examples of a character with a changed heart. Dumbledore might seem a candidate, but then he tells us that his apparent goodness was weakness (and I'm inclined to believe him). Percy or Regulus, perhaps, but they are both too secondary (and the the narrative function of the latter really seems only to have been there to get the locket out of the cave). Malfoy's heart doesn't change: he's still an arrogant little toerag, just an arrogant little toerag who wasn't really up to the task and whose power base was removed. His "curt nod" is an expression of submission. Debbie: I would argue that a change in heart and a change in personality are not the same thing. Draco unquestionably had a change in heart, or he would have behaved very differently throughout DH, even if he still showed a bit of arrogance in the RoR ("That's my wand you're holding, Potter") is vintage Malfoy. He's still Draco Malfoy, or else I would charge JKR with giving him a personality transplant. I read the epilogue as subtly underlining the change in Draco. We can debate the degree of Draco's character development, and whether it was sufficient to satisfy ourselves, but it's clear from the epilogue that Draco is no longer emulating his father. Lucius would have walked over to Harry and Ron and begun baiting them with nasty comments, as he did to Arthur Weasley at Flourish and Blotts in CoS. Draco used to do the same thing whenever he saw the Trio. Not anymore; he gives them a nod. Mus: The sad answer seems to be that it's an ill-thought-out mess. And as Le Guin said, rather a mean-spirited one. Do I think that she was consciously writing an antinomian text? Absolutely not. But I don't think that she ever decided what the parameters of her imagined moral universe were, and in a series which is expressly about the battle between good and evil, that is a crucial and lethal flaw. Debbie: I agree that JKR's desire to mete out karmic justice to wrongdoers has elements of antinomianism, as well as mean-spiritedness. I agree with Ursula LeGuin on this point. But as I don't find these elements to be particularly connected to an Evil!Slytherin, I find that I can understand the Good vs. Evil message in spite of the antinomian noise in the background. I do appreciate that it may be difficult for others to do so. Debbie who also appreciates Wynnleaf's elucidation of the principles of Calvinism [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 23 19:41:02 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:41:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: <549520.39053.qm@web58408.mail.re3.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177329 Wynnleaf: > First, I'm a very strong Calvinist and I know my theology backward and forward, having, among other degrees, an undergrad degree in Biblical Studies from a college that teaches within Calvinist doctrine, and having studied under some of the best teachers of Calvinism in the 20th century. lizzyben: Thanks so much for offering your insights here. I was really curious about whether JKR's view actually reflects Calvinism or not. Wynnleaf: > The idea, as I understand it, is that the characters in Slytherin are "ordained" to be in Slytherin and are reprobate. That is, nothing they can do can make them "good." > > Characters in Gryffindor are "ordained" to be in Gryffindor and are therefore "the chosen" and are always considered "good," no matter what they do. lizzyben: That's about it. But it seems like, in the Potterverse, Slytherins are mostly incapable of good. Or if they do do good, it's for selfish reasons. While Gryffindors are consistently characterized as "good" because they are morally good & act in a noble, brave, chivalrous fashion. To JKR, it seems like character is set almost at birth - and people can't really change that character. So a bad kid will be a bad adult, and won't ever really be "good". She does seem (IMO) to consider Gryfs' *actions* to be superior to Slyths - so it's not so much that Slyths can't be good no matter what they do, but that they *won't* be good because they have bad character. Wynnleaf: > The idea that being "chosen" means that it doesn't matter what you do, or how bad your actions are, you're still counted among the "good" just because you're chosen is actually considered antinomianism and is generally considered a heresy, even in Reformed (Calvinist) churches. In Calvinism, the basic idea about actions is that if you're chosen by grace, then your *heart* is changed. The focus is on heart change, not outward affilliation. lizzyben: It seems like, in the Potterverse, the Sorting Hat can see into your heart & see your intrinsic nature. "You might belong in Gryffindor, Where dwell the brave at heart, Their daring, nerve, and chivalry Set Gryffindors apart" seems to imply that those of "good heart" will go to Gryffindor, while those who use bad actions or bad hearts get sorted Slytherin. ("Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends.") As Mus pointed out, the book says that Harry was "chosen" for Gryffindor, almost as a sign of grace or favor. So Gryffindor = those chosen by grace, of changed heart. But that breaks down pretty quickly, as posted below. Wynnleaf: > If a person was first thought to have been chosen, but no corresponding change of heart was detected (generally through the person's actions and choices), then one would begin to seriously question whether the person were "chosen" at all. So, if true Calvinism were really being played out symbolically in the HP series, I would think that someone would start to wonder why the supposed "good guys" were showing no greater goodness of heart than the bad guys. lizzyben: That's what I wonder about. If Gryffindors are really supposed to be the "noble & good", why is it OK for them to to bad things? How can they be the good guys w/o showing goodness of heart? But sometimes it seems like JKR sees the characters very differently than we do - i.e. Hermione was totally justified in scarring Marietta, HBP!Ginny is funny & compassionate even though she hexes everyone, etc. So it seems like there's a big disconnect between what JKR is intending to portray & what really comes across. I do think that JKR believes that Harry, Hermione, Ron & the Gryfs have greater goodness of heart, & that they make better choices and take better actions. This was brought home in the Hogwarts scene where more Gryfs chose to stay than any other House, etc. It's just that her definition of "good" might be different from others'. If the Gryffindors really did show greater goodness of heart that the Slytherins, would that work as a Calvinist analogy? Wynnleaf: > Many people outside of Calvinism assume that the belief is more organized around outward affiliation. The "chosen" people all are identified by their verbal affiliation whereas what they actually do, how they act, the kind of people they are, doesn't make any difference. But although common, that is a complete misunderstanding of Calvinist doctrine. In reality, the sign of "election" is a changed heart. Evidence of a changed heart and election is "made sure" by actions and choices that exemplify the state of the heart, not by claiming affiliation with a certain group. lizzyben: So, choices and actions show that one has a changed heart. You can't claim to have a changed heart solely based on what group you belong to. But in Harry Potter, this gets messed up, because DD first tells Harry "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." That seems to be in line w/what you have said above. But then DD says that Harry's choice to join a certain group (Gryfs) proves that he is better than the Slytherins. So in HP, it's both - your choices show your heart, AND claiming affiliation with a certain group proves you are "elect". It's like HP is using the misunderstanding of Calvinism that you're describing - that just belonging to a certain group makes you better than others. It's got the structure of Calvinism, but the actual morality is missing. There's a similar problem w/the "Christian message" of DH. JKR says that DH reflects her Christian beliefs, and this seems to play out w/Harry's death & resurrection - which seems to parallel the sacrifice & ressurection of Jesus. And Harry is repeatedly referred to as the "chosen one"/messiah. So Harry is Jesus. But how can he be Jesus when he's torturing people? Again, it's like the imagery is lifted, but the morality is left behind. Wynnleaf: > If the HP series truly does send the message that being in Gryffindor makes you "good" or being in Slytherin makes you "bad," yet the actions and choices of the two do not reflect this, then that is *not* Calvinism, but antinomianism. Do I think JKR, would consciously write something supporting that doctrinal position? Absolutely not. > > wynnleaf lizzyben: Thank you! You've come up with the perfect word to describe the Potterverse - Antinomianism. an?ti?no?mi?an?ism NOUN: 1. Theology - The doctrine or belief that the Gospel frees Christians from required obedience to any law, whether scriptural, civil, or moral, and that salvation is attained solely through faith and the gift of divine grace. 2. The belief that moral laws are relative in meaning and application as opposed to fixed or universal. http://bartelby.com/61/39/A0343900.html That seems to describe what JKR actually wrote much better than Calvinism (which has moral laws). Gryffindors, because they are Gryffindors, can break the school rules, can use Unforgiveable Curses, can hurt others, and it's all OK because they're members of the Good House & have faith in Dumbledore. I don't think that JKR would consciously write something that supports that position, but it seems to be what she's done. Basically, IMO, I think JKR took some Calvinist precepts, added some Christian elements, threw in some Nazi imagery, added some revenge fantasy & wish-fulfillment, tossed in a large dose of dehumanization, added an overall flavor of antinomianism, and stirred it all together into a rancid mess. lizzyben From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 23 21:26:50 2007 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:26:50 -0000 Subject: Antinomianism - Draco - the DA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177330 Mike: Talking about other people's religions has always made me uncomfortable. I'd just soon we left out specific religions and instead speak in terms of concepts, frameworks, and general principals if thats all right with you. Using wynnleaf's definitions, and I'm going to accept her view as expert testimony given her background in this area, we could go forward with this: >>> wynnleaf: The idea that being "chosen" means that it doesn't matter what you do, or how bad your actions are, you're still counted among the "good" just because you're chosen is actually considered antinomianism and is generally considered a heresy, even in Reformed (Calvinist) churches. <<< Lizzyben, can we therefore call the concept you are forwarding as antinomianism, per wynnleaf's definition? As she didn't capitalize it, I assume it is a concept rather than a specific religion. I would feel safer, less worried about stepping on toes if we go this route. > > Mike previous: > > Secondly, JKR wasn't assigning wizards to Heaven or Hell as > > far as I can determine. Where wizards went after death wasn't > > defined at all. > > lizzyben: > > - "King's Cross." In this chapter, Harry "dies" and his > soul travels to a kind of afterlife. There his flaws & scars > are washed away, and his perfect soul meets with Dumbledore (God) > in light. [Harry] "Then ... I'm dead too?" [Dumbledore] "On the whole, dear boy, I think not." My point was that this was a sort of *Way Station* between life and death. Harry *possibly* had a choice to go on to ... where? we don't know, because THAT is the final journey, Dumbledore's famous "next great adventure", that is **NEVER** defined. So JKR purposely stayed away from saying some wizards go to Heaven and some go to Hell. Instead she gave us DD's next great adventure. Does she imply a Heaven and Hell for wizards? I don't think she does, instead she gives us those that were afraid of death and those that weren't. Tom Riddle, Nearly Headless Nick, some of the other ghosts no doubt are afraid of *going on*. DD, the Flamels, James, Lily, Sirius, etc. do *go on*. We have Gryffs (your elect) that don't *go on* and presumedly, since the WW isn't filled with their ghosts, we have Slyths (your damned) that do *go on*. I have no doubt that Snape did, and that Slughorn, Draco and many others Slyths will go on in their time. > lizzyben: > At the same time, LV's reprobate, evil, soul is condemned to > everlasting torment, agony and punishment. Mike: Voldemort is not dead either. He's at the same Way Station as Harry. And it was explained to us in "The Flaw in the Plan": "It's your one last chance," said Harry, "it's all you've got left ... I've seen what you'll be otherwise ... Be a man ... try ... Try for some remorse ..." It is a *chance*, Voldemort's final disposition is not yet decided, what he will become *otherwise* connotes that there is an alternative ending to that flayed soulbit. And as I asked in my previous post, what chance is this? A chance to leave that Way Station and go to Hell? What would be the point? Also, as I said above, JKR doesn't have wizard Heaven and Hell, she has *going on* or not. It seems to me that that is the *chance* we are talking about here, the chance to *go on*. If JKR has Voldemort, the most evil character in the Potterverse, with still the chance to avoid being "damned" for all eternity, then I don't believe she wrote a story where all Slytherins are damned from the time they are sorted, either. > lizzyben: > God (DD) tells elect Harry that there is no help possible for the > damned. Mike: I strenuously disagree with the depiction of DD as God in the King's Cross station. He is shown explaining from his (DD's) perspective, he is admitting to his mistakes in life, unaware of whose curse actually killed Ariana and crying over the memory. I neither think DD is depicted as God nor think that JKR expected us to make that interpretation. This is again getting too close to personal religious discussion of the type that I am very uncomfortable with. I really don't want to tell you or anyone what their concept of God should or shouldn't be. If we could stick to discussing concepts, we should avoid putting peoples personal religious views on the table. > > Mike: > > Therefore, the rest of the WW is forgiven their sins > > including all the Slytherins. > > lizzyben: > > But in Calvinism, Christ's sacrifice only > saves & protects *some* of mankind - the elect. Mike: My example was a counter to your anitnomianism concept. I was attempting an - I don't know, possibly Roman Catholic - allegory. Point being, one could pick any number of canonical references and conceive an allegorical meaning tying to any number of religious concepts. I don't find it profitable to make either these allegorical propositions. Obviously, your mileage varies. > lizzyben: > > Yes, the Slytherins chose their path. And they chose badly because > they have bad characters. Mike: That's all and as far as I'm willing admit. I adhere to Steve's position, that it's up to the Slytherins to change their ways, not up to the rest of the WW to accept them as equals until they do. I also think part of the message is that now that the last of the Slytherin line is extinguished, those that identified with the worst of the Slytherin values have noone to rally to. That gives me hope that the better part of the Slytherins may come to the fore. > lizzyben: > > Well, according to JKR, we were *shown* that LV could repent because > he had a drop of Harry's pure blood in him. Mike: I've said this before, I don't care to debate what JKR said in interviews. I *don't* view her interviews as canon any more. In this, I take Magpie's position, if it's not in the book, it's conjecture. JKR *wrote* that Voldemort still had a chance to avoid eternity as that flayed soulbit, despite the fact that he caused his soul to become that abomination of his own free will. Why this is the case... I agree with you, it's not well defined. But the fact that it exists, counters your depiction as foregone conclusion of being "damned". > lizzyben: > > Hope this helps explain my position somewhat. Mike: Yes, you've done a good job of explaining your position. I don't agree with your take on it, but I do see where you are coming from. ***************************** I thought this one point from a few days ago, should be addressed. In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177207 > lizzyben: > Not only did Hermione hit him once, she was about to hit him again when Ron grabbed her arm, .... I fail to see how Hermione was in any way threatened here - she was the instigator of violence. Mike: Violence? A 14-year-old, not physically imposing, bookworm of a girl hits a 13-year-old boy with an open-handed slap. Violence? Draco is stunned mentally but in no way hurt physically. Violence? Could we be a little more realistic with the nouns here? It was a slap. My goodness, such a stretch. ****************************** In http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177312 > >>Alla: > I mean, she is manipulating me but in a different sense that I > understood you to imply. She manipulates me in a sense that I > follow her story, that I enjoy it, etc, but it is not a > manipulation really, it is a good solid writing I love. > > Betsy Hp: > That's exactly the sort of manipulation I'm talking about. Just as it'd be boring for us to read about a "story-book hero" facing peril we know he's going to get out of (as he's the hero), it's boring watching the BMOC smear a regular guy. So JKR gets us to forget that Harry is better liked than Draco, that whenever they clash Harry wins, and that Harry has more people backing him up. That way we get that viseral "Yay!" when Harry beats Draco down. It's good writing on JKR's part, and that's the manipulation I'm talking about. Mike: Yep, good writing on JKR's part. Which is why there are people on this list discussing her books. Because she *manipulates* us into believing in her world. If she hadn't made her world believable, we wouldn't be discussing it, would we? If she didn't cause us to immerse ourselves into her characters, we wouldn't care what happened to them. Why would anyone read, much less discuss, a work of fiction if you didn't allow yourself to be manipulated by the author? Manipulated into believing the story, not necessarily agreeing with all of the author's positions within the story. Therein lies the difference. Because, like Alla, I found the characterization plausible as well as enjoyable. Not that I liked everything that went on, but that I cared about what happened to these characters. That only happens, imo, because I found the actions of the characters reasonable, believable, and true to the precepts JKR set up. Therefore, I allow myself to be manipulated. As to BMOC, isn't part of being a BMOC knowing and believing that defines ones position? Can one be a reluctant BMOC? Being in Harry's pov, I don't get the sense that Harry thinks of himself as BMOC, until HBP. He was totally surprised that Ron was right about the Yule Ball, that Harry practically had his pick of dates. And he *still* didn't get to go with the girl he wanted to. What good is it being a BMOC if you still get beat out by a bigger BMOC? Even at the beginning of HBP, Hermione has to explain to him why all the people have signed up for his Quidditch tryouts. He knows he's this "famous Harry Potter", yet doesn't buy into concept himself. He avoids all those girls trying to get him to invite them to the Christmas Party. I was friends with a high school BMOC, he took advantage of his position, he didn't shy away from it. I guess what I'm saying is that we have a different concept of what it means to be BMOC. My BMOC would never have a guy like Ernie McMillan believing he's the heir of Slytherin. My BMOC would never have 3/4 of the school wearing Potter Stinks buttons. He would have some admirers trying to ask him for a date, but wouldn't go out of his way to avoid those admirers. > Betsy Hp: > (Of course, it didn't work on me, but I'm not saying it's because I'm smarter or anything. The Draco vs. Harry thing is more personal taste, I suspect. I know JKR meant for us to be turned off by Draco in his first scene, but Draco pinged things I like. Which means my interpertation is subversive. Deeply subversive as of DH. ) Mike: I hate to burst your bubble Betsy but you got manipulated just as much as the rest of us, dear. Mmm-hmm. Of course, I didn't believe that JKR's message was that I should unquestioningly accept her view of the characters. Just that the characters were believable, in her world. If Draco pinged things for you, you must have found him believable, no? Isn't that all a good writer asks in the long run? That you identify with her characters, not that you like or dislike the same characters that the author likes or dislikes. Didn't JKR say that Snape was a gift of a character, even though she doesn't understand why people like him? (I think JKR must have liked him a little too, but that's just a guess). Subversive reading in that you didn't like the characters that the author set us up to like? OK, I buy that. But you liked some of her characters, didn't you? So you were manipulated in the same way that me and Alla got manipulated, just your end result was different. > Betsy Hp: > Frankly, the DA group echoed so much about the Hitler Youth to > me it was a little bit scary. Mike: Oh, the Hitler Youth was a subversive organization, formed by those youths, against the in-place government's wishes, learning things the government didn't want them to know? Or was it the Hitler Youth's encouragment for spying on your neighbor, reporting any remotely subversive people or anti-government ideas that evinced a parallel to the DA? Hmm, different History books I'd imagine. Mike, who would still rather have been a Marauder than in the DA ;) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Sep 23 21:53:28 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:53:28 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177331 > lizzyben: > I do think that JKR believes that Harry, Hermione, Ron & the Gryfs > have greater goodness of heart, & that they make better choices and > take better actions. This was brought home in the Hogwarts scene > where more Gryfs chose to stay than any other House, etc. It's just > that her definition of "good" might be different from others'. If > the Gryffindors really did show greater goodness of heart that the > Slytherins, would that work as a Calvinist analogy? zgirnius: The text does not actually say Ginny is good when she hexes everyone, or Hermione was fully justified in the Sneak Jinx. Are you basing your evaluation on interview canon (such as "I hate a traitor", said regarding Marietta, or comments indicating Rowling likes Ginny?) Because if you are, the interviews pose a big problem for your theory that the Gryffindors are the Elect, always 'good'. Rowling has said that the Sorting Hat is always right, and the Sorting Hat placed Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor. But he's a traitor who gave the Potters up to Voldemort, and whose paltry moment of maybe having some sort of conscience in DH led to his death (strangled by the hand Voldemort gave him). I don't see a reading of the book that would support the idea that Peter is one of the Elect. Do you? > lizzyben: > There's a similar problem w/the "Christian message" of DH. JKR says > that DH reflects her Christian beliefs, and this seems to play out > w/Harry's death & resurrection - which seems to parallel the > sacrifice & ressurection of Jesus. And Harry is repeatedly referred > to as the "chosen one"/messiah. So Harry is Jesus. But how can he be > Jesus when he's torturing people? zgirnius: HP can have a "Christian message" without Harry being, literally, Jesus. "Reflects her Christian beliefs" could refer to something as non-specific writing the anti-Muggle-born stuff as wrong. Lots of non- Christians would agree, but if Rowling's beliefs on such topics happen to be informed by her personal religious faith, that's enough. From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 23 22:16:48 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 22:16:48 -0000 Subject: Water Traits (was: Back to Slytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177332 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jeanine5715" wrote: > << --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" wrote: Or is there a "water" trait that would work better and create a more equal balance with courage, intelligence, and loyalty? What would a Slytherin modeled on Snape at one end of the spectrum and Slughorn on the other hand value? What would define the new, non-DE, no bigoted ideal Slytherin? >> Apparently Carol's post that Jeanine quoted is not on the message archive , so I am grateful to Jeanine for quoting it. I am interested in "water" traits because I am a "water" person. My "water" traits include being excessively emotional, moody, hedonistic ('sensual": I love soft beds and hot baths and gentle breeze on my skin, and chocolate, and floral essential oils, and cats, and pretty pictures on my wall, and scenery...), oversensitive, daydreamy, lazy, kind of "go with the flow", occasionally compassionate ... none of them positive traits for which future Slyths could be chosen. (Indeed, I am a Claw rather than a Slyth; the quiz in that 1980s book IIRC called "Please Understand Me" said I'm INXJ, which accords with my understanding of myself.) But I speculated on positive "water" traits for Slyths in : <> and in : << Prep0sterous: << '.... Those cunning folks use any means To achieve their ends.' This is the 'ambition' people speak of. but it's not just ambition. 'use any means to achieve their ends'. that goes way beyond ambitious, and is unable to be interpreted any way but negatively. >> Me: Would it scan to say 'use creative means'? Because, to me this is a reference (albeit negative) to a Water characteristic that I called 'versatile' in my previous post. Water uses a lot of means to achieve its goal of seeking the lowest level. It runs downhill until it encounters an obstruction (a dam). It might overpower the obstruction and carry it downhill along with the water. It might go around either side of the obstruction and seek new channels, which then deepen by use. It might, eventually, rise high enough to simply flow over the top of the obstruction. It might wait patiently to be able to do one of those things, and meanwhile it might leak into the ground and ooze circuitously through allegedly solid Earth and reach the water table and flow through dirt UNDER the bed of a western river or creek until it is consumed by plant roots or emerges as a spring .... That's without getting into ice. Because water expands as it freezes, simple little ice in the soil can push boulders out to the surface, and simple little ice in cracks can split boulders or concrete structures. Of course, even if Crabbe 'n' Goyle's ambition was to be valued servants of a leading Bad Guy, we haven't seen them trying diverse methods to achieve that goal.>> > Jeanine: > Yes there is indeed a "water" trait that would create a more equal > balance with courage, intelligence and loyalty and it is LOVE. Love > encompasses compassion and sacrifice. These are qualities that > Professor Snape displayed to a high degree. A motto often associated > with "water" traits is "I feel". Those individuals who can truly > feel, who can empathise, sympathise, and understand, are so often > those who are the greatest amongst us. The outstanding example of > undemanding love set by Profesor Snape forms an appropriate > justification for the adoption of Love as the defining quality / > trait of future Slytherins. If Love is, as canon sometimes hints, the greatest virtue and/or the greatest power, it should embrace All elements (perhaps even rise above them as the Fifth Element, which I prefer to call "spirit"), not be defined as one element. And it is certain that forms of Love can be passionate and Fiery and even burn people up. And forms of Love are 'patient', which is mostly an Earth trait. And, umm, I need someone else to explain the Air aspects of Love. From elfundeb at gmail.com Sun Sep 23 23:07:54 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 19:07:54 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709231607u75866b0dx67aa569843f2d123@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177333 Jen: I thought Crabbe meant he and Goyle (and now I'll add in Draco) hung back during the evacuation. I guess they could've hung back from going to the Great Hall but that reads like a hole to me if none of the teachers noticed a known DE student and his two friends, who are proficient at torturing, didn't appear. More of a hole than Harry not making mention of them in the Great Hall anyway. Debbie: I think it's conceivable that the three of them were there, but that Draco was more or less hiding behind his friends. However, I think it's more likely they didn't show up in the Great Hall in the first place. Slughorn's earlier comments to McGonagall implied that he was still terrified of defying DEs ("I'm not at all sure whether this is wise, Minerva. he is bund to find a way in, you know, and anyone who has tried to delay him will be in most grievous peril"). Slughorn was the least likely of all the heads of house to follow through to ensure that all his students went to the Great Hall, especially sons of DEs who had demonstrated an enthusiasm for the Cruciatus Curse. So, while canon doesn't tell us, I'm assuming that MCG did not show up in the Great Hall. Jen: Now I can't picture what Draco was doing at school. He's shown 'terrified' to be torturing for Voldemort; I can't imagine him taking any pleasure or interest in using Crucio against his fellow students although it would be expected of him. This leaves a blank as to how Draco handled his time at Hogwarts. He's still sympathetic to me but it would have been more interesting to read how Draco worked out his mixed feelings about having to appear as a DE when he no longer wanted that life. Debbie: Draco could hardly avoid using Crucio, but I doubt he had to use it frequently. Headmaster Snape finagled easy punishments for Neville, Ginny and Luna, and I'm sure he was looking out for Draco as well and made sure he didn't spend a lot of time on Crucio duty. Heh, if Draco had been standing by when Voldy killed him I'd bet he'd have turned over a mostly different set of memories, full of conversations with Dumbledore on how to protect Draco in addition to the ones he showed Harry. Jen: Again for me it's how to fit the diadem in the Draco story. What about this option? Draco is trying to get away from LV and the only way he can do so is to pretend he's on this mission with Crabbe/Goyle. He's trying to run interference in the ROR, keep Crabbe/Goyle from actually doing any damage without blowing that he's no longer a real DE or Voldemort sympathizer. So he seizes on the diadem thing in the hopes of distracting Crabbe from what appears to be *his* mission - capture or kill Harry. It's not really something Draco wants for himself or to take back to LV, he doesn't know what it is, but it's a diversion at least. Draco's typically portrayed as quick on the uptake when it comes to sussing things out. Debbie: I'm with you here, although if Harry is the prey I'm not sure how the diadem will distract them. but for the life of me I can't figure out what Draco was going to say about the diadem. I've checked the canon and there's nothing to suggest he knew that Harry was looking for anything, so he must have made something up. "'Potter came in here to get it,' said Malfoy with ill-disguised impatience at the slow-wittedness of his colleagues, 'so that must mean -- '" (a) . . . that it's really powerful and we should find it and use it? (b) . . . that the Dark Lord would want it, and bringing it to him would cover us in glory? (c) . . . that if Potter wants it, we should find and destroy it immediately? Crabbe's not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but he's sharp enough to know that Potter is the prize, and though he doesn't know it, burying the diadem is exactly what Voldemort would want. However, I think Draco is getting desperate, as he's aware that his plan may go awry and most likely he will either be squeezed out or held liable for Potter's death. Jen: Draco's the one who had to grow up fast, first, before Harry realized what was at stake. Harry's still playing out their old roles in the ROR scene, "he could not believe that he was this close, and was going to be thwarted by Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle." (chap. 31, p. 629) Draco's the one who's actually changed in the scene, you know? I think that's what struck me about that moment. Debbie: Very true. What really strikes me about Draco in DH as a whole and this scene in particular is the challenge he faced growing into his new role as an opponent of the DEs. I believe, as you suggest, that the correct parallel is Snape. Having decided he doesn't want the DE life, he continues to have to live it outwardly, one of the toughest jobs ever. He's clearly not as good at it as Snape, because unlike Snape, Draco's not much of an actor. He wears his heart on his sleeve always, first in parroting the philosophy of his loving parents, then in doing their will in seeking out Harry Potter as a friend, in challenging the Trio -- for years! -- after his overture of friendship is rebuffed, in stepping up to the plate after his father is imprisoned, and finally in accepting on the Astronomy Tower that he is not a killer. Draco's job in DH is very tough, and he improves at it, but only in the RoR scene do we see echoes of how Snape would have acted, both in trying to thwart Crabbe and Goyle to protect his parents and in trying to save his friend at all costs. As it turns out, Draco is a fool who loves, and this is the biggest surprise of DH. Draco wasn't redeemed because he was a coward, but because, like Snape, he had the capacity to love. Debbie who once speculated that Draco could not be redeemed except through his cowardice [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From starview316 at yahoo.ca Mon Sep 24 00:01:45 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:01:45 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177334 > Magpie: > Harry, otoh, seems to be the WW's main celebrity. He's an ordinary > guy the way Brad Pitt is ordinary--iow, not at all, which is why he's > got personal relationships with all the MoMs. Draco is actually far > more ordinary--albeit wealthy. He's a good student, but not the best, > a good Quidditch player, but no the best. He gets attention because > he dances on tables and screams for it. If he shut his mouth he might > have been one of the nameless hoards who know Harry's name without > Harry knowing his. He does get himself a certain social status within > his house, but he certainly seems to work for it. In terms of being > popular in general, well, he can't be popular the way Harry is, can > he? Or even Ron is? Because he's a Slytherin and they seem to be in > their own world there. He does seem to get attention from other > students when he makes loud comments, but that's it. > > And yes, of course I agree that being "popular" has nothing to do > with being liked. Popular people are often resented terribly and can > have as many "frenemies" as friends. I can't imagine anybody going > through high school and knowing who the popular people were thinking > these were people who were universally liked or never turned on by > the school. They're turned on due to pent-up resentment of jealousy > half the time--which is pretty much what happens to Harry. Amy: I think I might need to clarify my position. Yes, Harry is (as portrayed by the books), more well known, and probably more well- liked than Draco. (Except by the Slytherins, which is half my point.) I don't think I personally was actually arguing that Draco was more "popular" than Harry, or if I was, I got really off-track. Yes, Draco by comparison would be more the "every-man" of the two, but I was more protesting against the idea that Draco's confrontations with Harry give off the tone of "the Lesser Everyman" against the "Bigshot on Campus". Quite honestly, I don't think they do, because while you are right about the "popular" people with as many frenemies as friends, the fact is that to launch a laughing/smear campaign against one of the "popular" people in high school would be the equivalent of social suicide. Maybe this is how it should happen between Harry and Draco, being who they are in the eyes of the wizarding world -- but even if you argue that Draco is just taking advantage of the fact that "the popular king has fallen off his pedestal" during their public confrontations, and that technically, they still keep their positions of "Everyman" and "BMOC" ... um, after this same thing has happened about three or four times? I really can't agree. However many times we have seen the students cheer for Harry, we have never ONCE seen them stand up for him (or his friends, who by definition should be the popular clique) in the face of "Potter Stinks", "Weasley is Our King", or the fainting dramatics of PoA (during all of which, Draco is actually the one who got students on a grand scale to laugh at Harry). Draco is confident enough to shout catty comments to Harry and his friends in the corridors and across the Entrance Hall, and no one even blinks an eye. The one time we've seen Draco publically humiliated directly by Harry, in front of the whole school, we only see Harry and Ron laughing (this is when Draco gets hit with Harry's Patronus in PoA, and we have to assume the rest of the school might also be laughing). And during the times that Draco is beaten up by Harry and/or his friends, it's usually private, and never seems to affect Draco's social standing in any way. Yes, popular people can be equally well-liked and well-hated, but there is a reason that others just want so badly to be a member of the group, and that even more may just want to stay out of their way - - there's this whole power thing that comes with them, even if it is just an idea. They don't get laughed at, by whole crowds of people...not continuously, anyway, or else there's no reason to call them popular. And I just don't see this "power thing" at Hogwarts -- and if I have to say I do, then I'd also have to say that I see Draco carrying it more than I actually see Harry doing so, if that makes sense. Harry may have a wide cheerleading base, but if Draco *never* has to be afraid of angering said base when he takes things up with Harry on a school-wide level... if he can actually count on a larger group of people to be following him than be opposing him, then no, he can't be said to have the lesser amount of power on a schoolyard level. Amy From starview316 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 23 23:22:29 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 23:22:29 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177335 > > >>Alla: > > Notoriety, I think? Harry is well known, yes, but to me popular > > means **likable** all the time... > > Betsy Hp: > Ah. That's the mistake then. No, "popular" does *not* > mean "likable". Actually, sometimes popular people are very much not > likable (though sometimes they are). Which is probably why there's > such a resistence to linking Harry with being a BMOC or popular. But > *all* it takes to be considered popular or a BMOC is to be have the > student body all know you, all have an opinion on you, and to have a > certain amount of celebrity. All of this Harry has. > > Notoriety is actually a part of being popular or the BMOC. As I said > previously. Amy: If being known by all is all it takes to be a BMOC, then okay, Harry is a BMOC (I still don't agree. But I'm also willing to forget this point). I don't have a huge problem if you choose to see him as the Big Man on Campus at Hogwarts, but you can't imply from their interactions that *Draco* is "taking on the Man". That was the first (really the only main) issue I had trouble with in one of your first posts on the subjects, because if Draco were "taking on the Man", that would imply that Harry is actually the traditional, *well- liked*, everyone has a positive opinion on him, BMOC. That would imply that Draco would be crazy to take on this BMOC, because it would be the equivalent of social suicide. And whoever is more well- known or liked better, we know for a certified fact that, on a school- wide level, Draco is never farther from committing social suicide when he takes on Harry (when I say school-wide level, I mean the confrontations that happen in front of most of the school). In fact, it's practically the other way around -- again, we don't know whether Harry could muster the influence to get all the students to point and laught at Draco, but we know from three separate occasions that Draco can get at least a quarter, sometimes even three-quarters, of the school to laugh at Harry, to publically humiliate Harry or one of his friends. For all that Draco might be humiliated by Harry in turn, it always seems to happen in private, never seen by more than ten students (and this is a random estimate), and never seems to affect his social standing. No, taking on someone more magically powerful than him does not count. Nor does taking on said someone when said someone's friends are around count, either -- that's not taking on the Man, that's just not knowing when to quit (either while you're ahead, or whenever). > Betsy Hp: > Oh, I'm not implying. Seriously, the fact is Harry is a BMOC > but *Harry* doesn't see himself that way. It's not a position he's > interested in having. Therefore he doesn't think himself as BMOC, > therefore readers can fool themselves into thinking he's not a BMOC. > But he is. Therefore the idea that he's not a BMOC is the result of > JKR manipulating her readers into seeing him as not a BMOC. > > It's the way she has us on the edge of our seats at the climax of the > books: will Harry survive? Well, of course he will, he's the hero of > the series, he's not going to get killed off in the graveyard in > GoF. That Harry is the hero is a fact. But for the scene we > believe, with Harry, that he's just a scared kid in the hands of of > evil wizards. Because JKR manipulates us to see him as such. Amy: I have to actually agree with Alla here; of course, the Harry filter runs through the books, so what we read relies heavily on his perception of things. But most HP readers aren't mindless drones, we can look at actual events as they happen in the books and draw our own conclusion from them. There is no Imperius curse on these books to make us think what JKR wants us to think. It feels like I might have said this before, but I have kind of realized from seven books of "Is that Harry Potter?" and people continuously looking at Harry's scar, and the dozens of newspaper articles printed about him, that Harry might be famous. I have read about the girls that chase him around and his super Seeker skills and whatnot. I agree that a lot of people admire Harry for these things. Just because I don't agree with your specific definition of Big Man On Campus, doesn't mean I've been brainwashed by JKR. I've read the exact same books, where Harry was chased by girls for the Yule Ball in GoF, then treated like a pariah in OotP, and no amount of Harry- filter can change these basic facts. From this you may have gathered that the entire school has a firmly admiring opinion of him, but I just can't, and that's why I can't think of Harry as a BMOC. Again, the one truly canon BMOC we have in the HP books is *well-liked* by the majority, and THAT is a firmly admiring opinion. If Harry were as well-admired, we wouldn't see his so-called popularity seesaw as much as it does. Yes, everyone knows him. No, everyone does NOT have an opinion on him. At least, they don't have an opinion on him that's not subject to change by the merest rumour that might pass by -- which, imo, is not an opinion at all. > Betsy Hp: So JKR gets us to forget that > Harry is better liked than Draco, that whenever they clash Harry > wins, and that Harry has more people backing him up. That way we get > that viseral "Yay!" when Harry beats Draco down. It's good writing > on JKR's part, and that's the manipulation I'm talking about. > I really hope that by "whenever they clash Harry wins", you mean that Harry ultimately wins (usually in the last confrontation of the book, although this tends to vary in other books). Because if JKR does get us to forget all this, there must be a successful method she has in doing so, if so many people are, in fact, cheering for you to recognize it as a problem. Not even a six-year-old would cheer for Harry's beating Draco down if Draco hadn't (in a literary sense, not just in the single confrontation-sense) been acting a nuisance for a long enough time for it to get annoying. I mentioned this to someone else when asked about why Draco would keep coming back to bother the Trio if he were just going to be beat up all the time. I know that for a lot of readers, it's the physical confrontations that tend to stick in mind the most, but the fact is that Draco does get in a LOT of quick snipes and jabs here and there throughout the books, without any "beatdown" reaction. I'd say, on average, that the ratio of Draco's jibes to the Trio et al's physical reactions, is about a 3:1 ratio. They are not the best odds, but they are still positive ones -- yes, if Draco is that determined to get to them, I can see why he'd still come back. So maybe it is manipulation, but if it is it's not entirely on the part of JKR; at least 2 out of 3 times, Draco picks on the Trio without anything happening to him, and *that* is what the cheering readers most likely identify with, and respond to. Amy From 12newmoons at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 00:36:18 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:36:18 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177336 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: Harry came when Dudley was around a year and a half. Part of Petunia's neglect of Harry could have been overcompensating Dudley for the analogous loss of importance she felt when Lily came along. She is bound and determined that Dudley won't feel like she did. Kneazlecat: It often seems that if we are hurt or act in a way we are unhappy with, we try to compensate for the lack in future situations or relationships. But because the new people or situations are not the old ones, the books can never satisfactorily be balanced, and we just frustrate ourselves trying. And often the people in the new situation don't know what's motivating us, so they're confused by behavior that doesn't seem to be consistent with what they perceive as reality, and on and on it goes. It sounds like that's what's going on with Petunia, according to your very insightful analysis. She was hurt as a child, and instead of figuring out why and who was responsible, she carried the hurt with her into adulthood and punished someone who wasn't in any way responsible for her anger. And did her treatment of Harry make her feel better? No, of course not, because it was directed at the wrong person. I wonder if on some level, Petunia knew that she was being grossly unfair to Harry, and if that made her feel guilty, but not so guilty that she stopped being unfair to him. If so, that might account for her silence when they parted in DH. Petunia was so full of conflicting emotions, many of them carried from her childhood, that she was emotionally paralyzed in that moment. It would be interesting to think about the adult characters in canon who spend the entire time reacting inappropriately to memories of painful episodes in their pasts. One could argue that Molly does that, never having gotten over the deaths of her brothers. She becomes permantley fearful, instilling that fear in her children even during a time when there appears to be nothing particular to fear. And yet, she has the ability to pull herself together and get tough when she has to, so it's not as though that part of herself never existed. But her grief for her brothers overwhelms the brave part of her, until she has to bring it back to life. Laura wrote: I think she [Petunia} would feel relieved to have Harry out of her life. She doesn't want to relive that part of her life. Kneazlecat: So she'll continue to carry her anger and resentment around for the rest of her life. But if Dudders establishes a relationship with Harry, maybe Petunia would feel forced to do so as well. Laura: > We know for certain that they tried to instill in Dudley a hate > and fear of everything magical. His fears are confirmed and expanded when he meets Hagrid and gets a tail. Harry's powers terrify Dudley - he can deal with muscle and insults; he is falls apart when trying to deal with powers that he has been taught to fear and doesn't understand. Kneazlecat: And there's the tragedy of the magic/Muggle intersection in miniature. Each has painful experiences with the other, no constructive communication takes place and since neither side understands how the other feels, things continue to deteriorate. Harry is now estranged from the world in which he grew up, and the Petunia has cut off the possibility of a relationship with her sister's only child. Sigh. From AllieS426 at aol.com Mon Sep 24 01:18:58 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 01:18:58 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177337 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "zanooda2" wrote: > zanooda: > > Hi, Allie! If the book covers affect you like this, you must really > love the new cover art for the Ukrainian HP translation. Harry is > incredibly handsome there! I find it strange though that the artists > seem to copy Movie!Harry appearance. Don't they have their own > imagination? Anyway, as Handsome!Harry believer, you should enjoy > these covers :-)! You probably already saw them, but just in case: > > http://gallery.the-leaky-cauldron.org/picture/188076 > Allie: Yikes! That's actually a little bit backwards that the trio is drawn to look like the actors. The actor who plays Ron Weasley doesn't really look like JKR's description (he doesn't have a long nose OR freckles!) I sort of picture Harry as cute, and I don't think any of the male characters are really described as handsome, are they? Ginny is supposed to be quite pretty, but Cedric is the only male student of the current generation I can recall who was supposed to be handsome. From 12newmoons at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 02:00:14 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:00:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177338 (kneazlecat54) wrote: > > > Hestia tells Harry that Mad-Eye will give him the details, but that the Dursleys must leave so that they will be far enough away to > Disapparate at the same moment that Harry leaves Privet Drive for > good, thus breaking the protective enchantment that Lily gave him. > > > Carol responds: > Ihope you don't mind my pointing out here that the protective enchantment that's ending is Dumbledore's, which was based on Lily's blood protection. Laura: Really? So the same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW? Laura wrote: > > 1. The way Vernon calls to Harry speaks volumes about their > relationship. What strikes you about this and what do you think it > means? > Carol: > I don't recall him saying, "Oi, you!" before, but the refusal to use his name is in character, essentially, a refusal to acknowledge > Harry's humanity or relationship to the family, IMO. Essentially, Vernon wishes that Harry didn't exist and pretends that he doesn't whenever possible. Laura: Harry, OTOH, refers to Vernon and Petunia as Uncle and Aunt, at least in his head. I don't recall him actually addressing them by name either, though. But at least he doesn't refer to them as "the Muggles", the way other people in the WW do. Laura wrote: We learn in Book 1 that it is her [Petunia's] rage and resentment > towards Lily that is playing out in her treatment of Harry. Carol: > I thinks there's more to it than her rage and resentment toward Lily, but also her knowledge of what will happen if she violates her implied contract with Dumbledore. He must have told her that she and her family would be in grave danger if anything happened to Harry--IOW, I think that the blood protection extended to them while he was in the house or called it home. She has a clearer idea than Vernon does of the power of wizards. Laura: Are you suggesting that DD essentially blackmailed the Dursleys into taking Harry by telling them that the only way they would be safe would be to let Harry stay with them? Carol: I wish she could have showed him a photo of herself and Lily or let him read the letter that was tucked into his blankets, but the glimpses provided by Snape's memories are probably the only insight into Petunia's childhood that Harry will ever have. Laura: Do you think that letter still exists? Is there any reason Harry would know about it? If so, he would want to get his hands on it, I'd think. Laura wrote: 5. After Dudley's encounter with the dementors in Book 5, fans > wondered what experiences Dudley relived. > Carol: > But Harry should know that Dudley's life hasn't been all peaches and cream. He'd been both frightened and harmed by wizards twice before he encountered the wizards.[I think you meant to say "dementors" here-Laura.] Laura: Interestingly, neither we nor JKR tend to take those two incidents very seriously, judging from what she had to say abut Dudley in the podcast right after DH was released. She didn't express sympathy for his mistreatment at the hands of older, more powerful people, and I think we as readers automatically adopt her POV. But those experiences really weren't very nice for Dudders, were they? Carol: I don't think what Dudley heard (not saw--aren't > Dementor-induced memories only sounds?) changed him. Laura: No, I think that Harry's memories are pirmarily aural because he was so small at the time that perhaps he couldn't process what he saw, but he could make sense of what he heard. He does, however, remember the green light. When Sirius and Hagrid refer to having to relive their memories in Azkaban, I got the sense that the memories were full and complete. Laura wrote: 9. Compare Dudley's dementor experience with that of Bellatrix or > Barty Crouch Jr. Can we learn anything about the moral awareness of these characters by their reactions to encounters with dementors? Carol: I think that Bellatrix in Azkaban would have had some protection from the Dementors through Occlumency (she knows enough to teach Draco the basics), and I think her certainty that she had acted rightly in searching for Voldemort would have helped her in much the same way that her cousin's clinging to his innocence helped him... neither she nor her fellow escapees completely lost their minds and gave in to despair. Hagrid, we know, reacts in the same way as Dudley,feeling that he'll never be happy again and remembering the worst moments of his life. Again, moral awareness has nothing to do with it. Laura: I agree with your results but I think the moral quality of the individuals caused the results. If you don't think you've ever done anything bad or shameful, you'd have nothing to fear from Azkaban. If you're convinced that might is right, and you've had might behind you and will again, you'd have nothing to fear from Azkaban. If you have no interest in love or the actions that people take because of it (Lily, for instance), you can't be hurt by memories of emotional pain. It's those people who would be able to escape the effects of the dementors most easily. They have no shame, no pain and no understanding of the responsibility we all owe each other simply because each of us is human. Laura wrote: 10. The ways in which Harry arrives at and leaves Privet Drive every > year are significant. What are your thoughts on this? > Carol: > Oh, my. It would take me a whole post just to list the different ways he leaves and returns, much less to analyze their significance. If there's a pattern, I don't see it except that Harry is in > trouble during the second, third, and fifth books, and is driven to > King's Cross by the Dursleys exactly once. Laura: I was going somewhere else here, and I think I phrased the question badly. Harry starts out barely able to get to Hogwarts without help, and when he comes back after the first year, he follows the Dursleys out of the station. By OOTP, he's flying to London with the Order and at the end of the book, he's leading the Dursleys out of the station. Over the course of the books, I think we can see Harry's confidence and maturity reflected in his comings and goings into and out of the WW. I'll leave it at that for now as I haven't read other people's posts yet. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 24 02:06:17 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:06:17 -0000 Subject: Riddle's Orphanage Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177339 I'm reading DH with my youngest. My second read, his first. We just started The Goblin's Revenge (at least I think that's the name of the chapter) and the Trio visited the site of Riddle's orphange---now a block of office buildings in London. The location of that orphange was a major thread once upon a time--- maybe there were more than one thread; I don't know. I was wondering what Geoff, and any other participants from that topic, thought about the search and the desciption of the location? Why do you think JKR had them visit the site? Even as they looked, they didn't expect to find anything. Potioncat who would have asked this question sooner, but wasn't completely certain she had really read it in DH, and didn't have the canon until tonight. From 12newmoons at gmail.com Mon Sep 24 02:10:38 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:10:38 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177340 Laura wrote: 4. Will Harry and Petunia ever see each other > again? Is there unfinished business between them? >> > Nancy: > Answer: I do hold a secret desire to have them meet on Platform 9 3/4 with Dudley delivering his child to the Howarts express:-).there is so much unfinished business there one can't begin to summarize it. Laura: Oh, what a delicious idea! I'd love to see that too. Can you imagine how fast the Dursleys would do a 180 on their attitude towards magic? Vernon's head might explode from the sheer pressure! That meeting would make a wonderful fic. If someone writes it, I want to read it! > From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 24 02:25:15 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:25:15 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177341 > 11. How the Order was operating since Dumbledore's death? It didn't > seem to be much of democracy while he was alive. How would > decisions be made without him? Potioncat: Moody seems to be in charge. At least, he's in charge of the mission to move Harry. The team follow his orders more quickly than they did in OoP. But after Moody passes no one leader seems to come forward. Or, if one does, neither Harry nor the reader will see it. The very fact that they take turns with the Secret Keeper role, or all have it at all times, shows that it is not a well run organization. But, was it ever? > > 12. Did you wonder what would happen to the Dursleys' lives while > they were in hiding? Would Vernon lose his job? How would their > bills get paid? Or were you happy to see the back of them? *grin* Potioncat: The Dursleys show up at the begining and end of each book. Like the Grangers--and to some extent the Weasley parents--their main role is to stay out of the way. So I gave them no more thought. > > 13. In PS and CS, Hedwig travels directly from Privet Drive to > Hogwarts on the train along with Harry. In books 3-6, she is free to > fly about on her own for a while before meeting Harry and returning > to school. Here, she is confined to her cage and not happy about > it. Did you see this as a foreshadowing of her fate in the next > chapter? Was it meant that way? Potioncat: I wondered about it during the chapter. And wondered more after the next. It makes Hedwig's death all the more poignant because there had been something of a rift between her and Harry. I seem to have felt it more than he did, though. JKR said in one of her interviews that death was a major theme in the series. I'm not sure if she had always intended it. JKR has said her mother's death made a big impact on her writing. I can see it in DD's death on the tower, Harry's wishing he had DD more questions while he could, and here, with Hedwig's sudden death during a period of distance. Thanks, Laura, for a very thoughtful set of discussion questions. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Sep 24 02:55:28 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 02:55:28 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177342 > Nancy: > > Answer: I do hold a secret desire to have them meet on > Platform 9 3/4 with Dudley delivering his child to the Howarts > express:-).there is so much unfinished business there one can't > begin to summarize it. > > Laura: > Oh, what a delicious idea! I'd love to see that too. Can you > imagine how fast the Dursleys would do a 180 on their attitude > towards magic? Potioncat: Hmmm. I know Vernon and Petunia dote on Dudley. But I wonder? Would Dudley and his parents embrace a wizarding child, or would they act just like the Black family on learning a child is a Squib? Which makes me wonder even more. How would Narcissa have reacted if Draco had been a Squib? Now I'm imagining Hagrid or George coming to Dudley's house to explain about little Vernon. Just picture that! From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 24 03:46:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:46:10 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177343 > lizzyben: > > That's what I wonder about. If Gryffindors are really supposed to be > the "noble & good", why is it OK for them to to bad things? How can > they be the good guys w/o showing goodness of heart? But sometimes > it seems like JKR sees the characters very differently than we do - > i.e. Hermione was totally justified in scarring Marietta, HBP!Ginny > is funny & compassionate even though she hexes everyone, etc. So it > seems like there's a big disconnect between what JKR is intending to > portray & what really comes across. Pippin: If everyone got a comeuppance every time they did something wrong, Voldemort's career would have been a lot shorter. The poetic justice of the Potterverse is clearly not a vending machine: put a bad deed in, get a comeuppance out. It's more like a slot machine: the more bad deeds you put in, the more likely you are to reap a comeuppance eventually, so you'd do best not to play at all, but better to quit before you've lost anything important. If Hermione thought she was totally justified in what she did to Marietta, if the Twins thought they were totally justified in what they did to Montague, they wouldn't have needed to keep it a secret from anyone who could rightfully punish them. They were proud of it, but after all it took years for Sirius to grow to the point where he was not proud of how he had treated Snape. JKR justifying her artistic decision is not the same as JKR justifying her character's actions. But any society which depends on bonds of mutual trust and obligation is going to see treachery as a threat not to the individual but to the fabric of society itself. Even without scars, Marietta would not find it easy to ever gain the trust of anyone who knew what she'd done, and in a society that depends on trust she would be crippled. The scars are a way to visualize that. Lizzyben: > I do think that JKR believes that Harry, Hermione, Ron & the Gryfs > have greater goodness of heart, & that they make better choices and > take better actions. This was brought home in the Hogwarts scene > where more Gryfs chose to stay than any other House, etc. Pippin: I don't think we have to explore the thickets of Christian sectarianism or the history of heresy to understand why JKR is not a multi-culturist. Old-fashioned religious leftism explains it perfectly well, IMO. If you believe that there is a moral imperative to create a more just society, then you can't believe something like "every society is equally just in its own way." There wouldn't be much point in working for social justice in that case. IMO, the Slytherins depict a subculture which evolved in such a way that progress towards social justice is not recognized as a greater good. That doesn't make the Slytherins evil, but it does make them more vulnerable to someone like Voldemort who wants to pervert social institutions to his own ends. IMO, the Gryffindors do not have greater goodness of heart -- that would make it impossible to explain the behavior of Peter Pettigrew. What the Gryffs have is a tradition that makes choosing the path of fairness and justice and forgiveness seem desirable even when they know it will be harder. But it doesn't come to them by magic, they had to be taught. The Trio is told constantly that people are not supposed to treat others cruelly or unfairly. They are given second chances. The Slytherins, for various reasons, are not getting the same message, and tend to reject it anyway, not because they're evil but because it's unfamiliar. It should have been unfamiliar to Harry too, (although the cartoons Dudley watches all the time would have their influence) but we are told that Harry is unusual. If JKR were trying to promote Calvinism, I'd expect to see subtle and not-so-subtle hints in that direction. I don't. However, the Order have names associated with the Fabian Society. *Fabian* Prewiit, *Kingsley* Shacklebolt, *Emmeline* Vance and Sturgis *Podmore*. The Fabians believed that meaningful change could only come about gradually and by peaceful means. We see what happens when the good guys resort to force. The ugliness of war engulfs them and makes them endanger the things they are fighting for. It's necessary to show us that to make us understand why they wouldn't go to war for social change, but only for survival. Lizzyben: But then DD says that Harry's choice to > join a certain group (Gryfs) proves that he is better than the > Slytherins. Pippin: Um, no. He said it made Harry very different from Tom Riddle. Harry is worried that the Hat wanted him in Slytherin because it saw him as Dark Wizard material and Harry did not want to be associated with the Dark Arts. We know that Tom Riddle did. But we don't know whether all Slytherins want to be associated with the Dark Arts, in fact at one point Harry wonders whether a first year knows that Slytherin House has produced more Dark Wizards than any other. Later we learn that when the Hat was created there was no strife between the founders, so Slytherin cannot have been a dark wizard then, if a dark wizard is someone who profits by spreading enmity and discord. It seems that according to Dumbledore's criteria we can't judge everyone by what House they're in, because, for one thing, we don't know whether it's their choice we're judging, or the Hat's. As he says, it matters not how you are born, but what you grow to be. I don't see why the same would not apply to how you are sorted. People can't change everything about themselves, they don't get to choose their instincts or their native abilities, but one thing that they *can* change is their minds. Which, in the Potterverse, can mean their souls. Lizzyben:, and stirred it all together into a rancid mess. Pippin: Anything can be made into a rancid mess if you read it subversively. Seeing Harry as Christ is pretty subversive when the author says he isn't a saint, IMO. He is at best a human attempting something like what JKR sees as Christ's example, and often falling short as humans do. Pippin From bawilson at citynet.net Mon Sep 24 00:47:27 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 20:47:27 -0400 Subject: TULIP, was Re: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177344 Not all Calvinist/Presbyterian/Reformed churches subscribe to TULIP; and, even within those churches who do, not all individual believers do. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Mon Sep 24 07:05:29 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 07:05:29 -0000 Subject: Trelawney Award, part II In-Reply-To: <867650.69551.qm@web45005.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Angela Billings wrote: > > What surprised me the most was that JKR really showed a different side of Dumbledore and Snape. I didn't see the calculating way Dumbledore used Harry coming at all. I had heard from other HP sites that JKR stated that the big 3 (Harry, Hermione and Ron) would not die, but I was almost certain that Ron was a goner. I loved the book and the way it ended. > > Thanking JKR for a fabulous ride - > I didn't spend much time in Newsgroups between the earlier books so didn't find out about all the theories until post DH. But within the family we discussed it. Peter and I were firmly in the 'Snape is Dudmbledore's man' camp and had an inkling that he had asked for Lily to be spared. Voldemort did seem to have tried not to kill her, which was out of character for him. The 'Severus please' was a plea to carry out their agreement, though we had not guessed that he was already dying, We thought it was an agreement that Snape would kill him if death was inevitable, both to save him pain and to advance Snape's position with V. We didn't guess how well Snape knew Lily pre-school, though we did wonder who the boy on the broom was. Dumbledore's past was a big surprise and the revelation of his level of callousness towards Snape and Harry. Harry dying came as no surprise as we had felt that he was 'doomed' as soon as we read the prophecy. We also guessed he was a Horcrux of sorts as that was his unique connection to Voldemort. For a while post HBP I clung to a hope that Dumbledore was alive, if only because there was so much more that we and Harry needed to know. But I gradually accepted that he was dead and that the Portrait would be the way he continued in the story. The whole Hallows thread in the story was the biggest surprise but I still tend to the view that they were introduced as Harry's 'get out of jail free card' and that she had intended him to die. But seeing the level of trauma in fandom caused by Snape's death and lack of closure I think that killing Harry irrevocably would have been unwise. So, for me DH was a pleasant mix of having my suspicions proved correct but with sufficient new revelations to make it a good read. allthecoolnamesgone From sassynpink at AOL.COM Mon Sep 24 06:20:02 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (juliemarie1967) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 06:20:02 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: <746165.4094.qm@web7911.mail.in.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177346 > Pooja (snipped): > I percieved that LV was killed inspite of the blood protection > as he had the sacrifical blood in him. Harry's mother sacrificed > herself, Harry himself sacrificed to save the wizard world and > now it was LV turn to sacrifice himself unknowingly though. > So Harry's blood increased the chances of LV to die as in HP4 > Dumbledore smiles when he comes to know that Harry's blood has > been taken. sassynpink: As I understood it, when LV killed Harry, the protection of his mother died with him. When Harry came back, it was gone. In turn, though, because Harry sacrificed himself for his friends they had an added protection. From snapes_witch at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 08:05:10 2007 From: snapes_witch at yahoo.com (Elizabeth Snape) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 08:05:10 -0000 Subject: Myrtle and Olive (and Tulip) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177347 "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" > > What does TULIP stand for? > I was raised Presbyterian and was also unfamiliar with TULIP, so I fell back on good ole Google where I found TULIP explained at: http://www.tulip.org/tulip.html/ >Total Depravity or Total Inability >Unconditional Election >Limited Atonement >Irresistible Grace >Perseverance and Preservation of the Saints Snape's Witch From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 12:28:00 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 12:28:00 -0000 Subject: TULIP, was Re: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177348 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Bruce Alan Wilson" wrote: > > Not all Calvinist/Presbyterian/Reformed churches subscribe to TULIP; > and, even within those churches who do, not all individual believers > do. lizzyben: The Church of Scotland *does* subscribe to TULIP, as I outlined in my longer post. The Church of Scotland is a traditional Reformed (Calvinist) church. I don't know what doctrines JKR personally subscribes to. But I do think it's safe to say that she is a Calvinist - she is a member of a Calvinist church & has attended that church for 12+ years, christianed her child there, etc. Whether her specific faith influenced Harry Potter is another issue altogether, & subject to debate. John Knox and the Church of Scotland Second in importance to John Calvin for the history of Presbyterianism is John Knox, a Scotsman who lived from 1514 to 1572. Knox led the Reformation in Scotland in accordance with Calvinistic principles, focusing much of his energy against the Catholic Mary, Queen of Scots, and Catholic practices like the mass. He "set the austere moral tone of the Church of Scotland and shaped the democratic form of government it adopted." {4} The presbyterian form of church government and Reformed theology were formally adopted as the national Church of Scotland in 1690. The Church of Scotland remains Presbyterian today. http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/denominations/presbyterian/history.htm From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Sep 24 14:59:26 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 14:59:26 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177349 Pippin: Dumbledore says in King's Cross that Voldemort is wrong to think Harry's blood will strengthen him. He does not explain why, except to say that Voldemort would never have dared to take Harry's blood if he truly understood its power, but that if he did understand its power he might not have been Voldemort at all. Voldemort thought being able to touch Harry proved that all of Lily's protection had been transferred to him but it seems he was wrong about that. I think magic at this level is not mechanistic. Phoenix song is the same way -- it grants courage to some but fear to others, depending on their pureness of heart. IMO, Harry's blood had no power to protect one who so completely denied the nature of its protection. Pippin realizing that in the Potterverse pureness of heart is not a constant quality, but a variable one. Harry's heart is not always filled with love but when it is, it is pure. From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 24 15:38:38 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:38:38 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: <223334.1190648318538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177350 From: allthecoolnamesgone >Dumbledore's past was a big surprise and the revelation of his level >of callousness towards Snape and Harry. Bart: Actually, Dumbledore's initial callousness towards Snape is out of character for him. As Dumbledore rarely does anything without a reason, it is reasonable to assume that there was a reason behind this, as well. Now, in terms of wizarding power and skill, Snape has shown himself to be way up there, possibly on the same order as Dumbledore and Morty (the fact that Morty thought that he was the first to discover the Room of Requirement, plus the contention that he was a psychopath, also implies that Morty was overconfident; he clearly did not consider Snape to be a potential rival, and I don't think Morty was capable of believing that Snape was a good enough Occlumens to fool him). Yet, Snape had let himself be used as a pawn. In a different time, or in a different house, Snape may well have become what Gildylocks pretended to be (well, without the award winning smile). I have mentioned before that Snape reminded me, to a certain extent, of the young Ebeneezer Scrooge from A CHRISTMAS CAROL; notably, the memory from DH where Lily finally breaks it off is reminiscent of when Scrooge's fiance breaks off the relationship, realizing that Scrooge would always love gold more than her. But, while Marley arranged for Scrooge to have a chance to turn around before it was too late, it was already too late for Snape. It took endangering Lily for him to see the path he was on, but he was unable to save her. Dumbledore's initial attitude towards Snape was because Snape still had not fully comprehended the enormity of what he had done; in order for Snape's repentance to be complete, he needed that callousness. Note that, once Snape has set on the path to redemption, Dumbledore's attitude towards him turned around. As far as Harry goes, I would not call the attitude a callousness. Here is the problem, as I see it. Since Harry was not a regular Horcrux, Dumbledore had hopes that the Mortysoul could be removed from Harry without killing him. But it wasn't until Morty insisted on using Harry's blood in his reincarnation that Dumbledore saw how it could be done (if Dumbledore WAS callous, there would have been no "gleam of triumph" in GOF). Now, it's clear that, when Morty hit him with YAAK, it destroyed the Mortysoul in Harry, and knocked them both out and sent them to the inbetween world that Harry saw as King's Cross (Morty was the weird baby thingy). Now, for reasons I can guess, but are not at all clear in canon, in order for this thing to work, Harry had to believe that he was sacrificing himself, and Morty had to have no idea of what was going to happen (my best guess, and it's only a guess, is that Harry needed to believe he was going to die in order to fully expose the Mortysoul to the AK). So, even to Snape, Dumbledore had to appear to be a callous manipulator when it came to Harry's death, or Harry wouldn't be convinced. In other words, if Dumbledore had let Harry know he was going to live, paradoxically, Harry would not have lived. I wish that JKR had been clearer on this point. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Mon Sep 24 15:47:25 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:47:25 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Myrtle and Olive (and Tulip) Message-ID: <5414833.1190648845891.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177351 From: Elizabeth Snape "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" >> What does TULIP stand for? >> > >I was raised Presbyterian and was also unfamiliar with TULIP, so I fell >back on good ole Google where I found TULIP explained at: > >http://www.tulip.org/tulip.html Bart: 1) It is said that Episcopalianism is unique, in that it interferes with neither your politics nor your religion. 2) Three men died, a Lutheran, a Roman Catholic, and a Calvinist, died and went to Hell. But God granted them each an audience, to explain how they got there. The Lutheran simply asked, "Why was I sent to Hell?" And God answered, "Because you lacked faith." The Catholic said, "But God, I had full faith in you. Why did I go to Hell?" And God answered, "You did not do enough good works." And the Calvinist said, "But God! I had faith! I did good works! I didn't know I'd end up here!" And God answered, "Well, now you do." Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 18:32:44 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 18:32:44 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177352 --- "juliemarie1967" wrote: > > > Pooja (snipped): > > I percieved that LV was killed inspite of the blood > > protection as he had the sacrifical blood in him. > > Harry's mother sacrificed herself, Harry himself > > sacrificed to save the wizard world and now it was > > LV turn to sacrifice himself unknowingly though. > > > So Harry's blood increased the chances of LV to > > die as in HP4 Dumbledore smiles when he comes to > > know that Harry's blood has been taken. > > sassynpink: > > As I understood it, when LV killed Harry, the > protection of his mother died with him. When Harry > came back, it was gone. In turn, though, because > Harry sacrificed himself for his friends they had > an added protection. > bboyminn: Hummmmm...I can't understand why anyone would think the Lily's protection died with Harry's near-death. Of course, I can't say you are wrong, that may be what the author intended, but I don't see anything in the books to support it. What died with Harry's near-death is the soul-bit belonging to Voldemort that resided in Harry. Now it seems from the graveyard scene that Voldemort did gains some degree of protection from Harry's blood, but I think that protection had it's limits. He could touch Harry, but after that incident in the graveyard, Dumbledore says that Harry still has Lily's protection. So, it seems that the protection wasn't neutralized by Voldemort having Harry's blood. Further, it would seem that as long as Harry lived, that is, he came back from near-death, Lily's protection would also continue to live. I think JKR intentionally made the resolution to the final confrontation between Harry and LV ambiguous. There are several factors that could come into play, and any one or all of them could be the thing that saved Harry. On one hand we have the rebounding curse thing. That was demonstrated when Harry and Draco dueled in the hallway, and re-enforced again in the LV/HP graveyard duel. When simultaneously cast curses collide head-on, they rebound off of each other. That alone could have been enough to save Harry. Others speculate that the Elder Wand can not and will not kill its Master. Maybe, but I don't think the books clearly support that idea. In fact, I don't think the books clear support Harry being the Master of the Wand. We and Harry don't know with absolute certainty that Harry truly is that Master; though I think he is. All we know for sure is the Voldemort is not the true Master. Then we have Lily's protection, that alone may have been sufficient to save Harry and cause the curse to rebound on Voldemort again for the second time. We have no indication that Lily's protection has weakened over time. Of course, we have no indication that it has not weakened. So, my point is JKR left it unclear; it's a mystery. All of these things and more could have been the key, or it may have been none of them, and just blind dumb luck. We do know that something worked, and that is all that counts. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 24 19:26:49 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:26:49 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood?. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177353 "pippin_999" wrote: > I think magic at this level is not mechanistic. I can't say I agree with you on this point, if magic were not mechanistic, that is, if it were not determined by cause and effect then the only alternative is that it is not determined by cause and effect. And that is the very definition of being random. If magic worked by random it would make a very poor plot engine. JKR is smarter than that. > Phoenix song is the same way -- it grants > courage to some but fear to others, > depending on their pureness of heart. However now you make a very interesting point; I wish I'd said it because not only is it interesting I have a hunch it's probably true too. > In the Potterverse pureness of heart is not > a constant quality, but a variable one. > Harry's heart is not always filled with > love but when it is, it is pure. Harry is not a perfect person but his heart is purer than most, it is certainly one hell of a lot purer than mine and I am the world's foremost expert on the purity of my heart. Eggplant From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 19:57:15 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:57:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177354 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > Cedric is the only male student of the current generation I can > recall who was supposed to be handsome. Hmm, if Blaise Zabini is anything like his mother, I expect he must be quite a looker :-)! It is not stated directly, however, so you are right - Cedric it is :-)! zanooda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 20:11:06 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:11:06 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177355 Mus wrote: > > For this poster, this rings rather true to what I read in the books, especially in HBP and DH. Using Unforgiveable Curses, tricking goblins, identity theft, the use of dark magic and so on by the White Hats seems to be the assertion that they are under no obligation to behave in a certain manner, specifically one that differentiates them from the Black Hats. Carol responds: I want to respond only to one tiny portion of this post even though I disagree with most of it. (I do appreciate the additional links to info on antinomianianism, however.) You speak of "tricking goblins," but Griphook (whom Harry had carried to safety and whose broken legs had been healed and fed and given refuge in a safe house by wizards) was not tricked. Aside from the dubiousness of his claim to the Sword of Gryffindor (which was made for, not stolen by, Gryffindor and had his name on it, as well as magical properties that could return it to any Gryffindor under the right conditions of need and valor), Griphook didn't trust the wizards to give it to him, either after he had helped them or when they were through with it, so he took it before it was given in payment and, after helping them break into the vault and telling Harry to Imperio both the goblin Bogrod and the Death Eater Travers so that HRH could take the cup to use it against Voldemort (he knew perfectly well that it wasn't being stolen for personal gain), ran to the other goblins and the DE affiliated wizards running Gringotts and told them that the vault had been robbed, not only taking the Sword they needed to destroy the Horcruxes and end his "race's" oppression as well as that of house-elves and Muggleborns, but betraying his fellow conspirators, putting the lives of the people he had promised to help at great risk. He got them *into* the vault, but even after Harry had pulled him from the multiplying, burning mound of silver and gold under which he could have died painfully, he had no intention of getting them out. In fact, if it hadn't been for the dragon, HRH would have been killed thanks to Griphook. While I don't fully approve of Harry's conduct and methods in this book and really wish that he hadn't used the Cruciatus Curse, I have no objections to HRH's use of Griphook "for the greater good" (a necessary step in the destruction of Voldemort), especially since he was as wily as any Slytherin and as untrustworthy as Peter Pettigrew. They had no other means of retrieving the cup from the vault at Gringotts. BTW, I doubt that Bellatrix suffered from the theft of her identity, however much she suffered for the theft of the Horcrux. Considering that she and Lucius pushed others out of the way in their flight to safety, leaving the messengers to be killed for bearing bad news, I can't feel any pity for her plight. (And she returned to LV more fanatically devoted than ever, but that's Bellatrix for you.) Nor do I think that the Muggles whose identity Harry and Hermione borrowed in the Godric's Hollow fiasco suffered any loss whatever. HH were nearly killed, but had they really been Muggles, they'd have been perfectly safe. Carol, glad that the sword came to valiant Neville when it did rather than remaining with greedy Griphook, whose name may indicate his devious covetousness From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Sep 24 20:14:59 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:14:59 -0000 Subject: Riddle's Orphanage In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177356 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > I'm reading DH with my youngest. My second read, his first. We just > started The Goblin's Revenge (at least I think that's the name of the > chapter) and the Trio visited the site of Riddle's orphange---now a > block of office buildings in London. > > The location of that orphange was a major thread once upon a time--- > maybe there were more than one thread; I don't know. > > I was wondering what Geoff, and any other participants from that topic, > thought about the search and the desciption of the location? Why do you > think JKR had them visit the site? Even as they looked, they didn't > expect to find anything. > > Potioncat who would have asked this question sooner, but wasn't > completely certain she had really read it in DH, and didn't have the > canon until tonight. Geoff: There was certanly a lot of discussion about Tom Riddle's connections with South London in which Shaun Hately and I took a large role in this about the end of 2003. Initially, it arose out of Riddle's diary which carried the name of a newsagents in Vauxhall Road. which led to a lot of information about the changes in the area especaily the altered names of roads. I lived for many years within 3-4 miles of the road and learned an awful lot of data about which I knew nothing. The discussion led us on to consider the Stockwell Orphanage as a possible home for Tom Riddle, the orphanage site being a couple of miles to the south of Vauxhall Road. It was a Baptist foundation which particularly interested me, being a member of a Baptist Church. The real world information is that the orphanage children were relocated to a new site well out of London in 1953. The location is now the site of Stockwell Park Secondary School. This seems to suggest that JKR may not have had this organisation as a model for her orphanage in HBP, judging by the description given in DH: 'Without any other leads, they travelled into London and, hidden beneath the Invisibility Cloak, searched for the orphanage in which Voldemort had been raised. Hermione stole nto a library and discovered from their records that the place had been demolished many years before. They visited its site and found a towerblock of offices. "We could try digging in the foundations?" Hermione suggested half-heartedly. "He wouldn't have hidden a Horcrux here," Harry said. He had known it all along: the orphanage had been the place Voldemort had been determined to escape from; he would never have hidden a part of his soul there. Dumbledore had shown Harry that Voldemort sought grandeur or mystique in his hiding places; this dismal, grey corner of London was as far as you could imagine from Hogwarts or the Ministry or a building like Gringotts, the wizarding bank, with its golden doors and marble floors.' (DH "The Goblin's Revenge" pp.238/39 UK edition) Two facts rather rule out any intended link. First, that there is now a school on the site and second, the orphanage was deliberately built in a pleasant and spacious area to create a positive base for the young people growing up there. Completely OT, it is ironic and sad that Stockwell tube station, just a hundred yards or so from the orphanage site, projected this place into the headlines in 2005 when the police shot and killed the innocent Brazilian worker, Jean Charles de Menezes, in the paranoid aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 20:38:25 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 20:38:25 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177357 > >>Amy: > > I don't have a huge problem if you choose to see him as the > Big Man on Campus at Hogwarts, but you can't imply from their > interactions that *Draco* is "taking on the Man". That was the first > (really the only main) issue I had trouble with in one of your first > posts on the subjects, because if Draco were "taking on the Man", > that would imply that Harry is actually the traditional, *well- > liked*, everyone has a positive opinion on him, BMOC. That would > imply that Draco would be crazy to take on this BMOC, because it > would be the equivalent of social suicide. And whoever is more well- > known or liked better, we know for a certified fact that, on a > school-wide level, Draco is never farther from committing social > suicide when he takes on Harry (when I say school-wide level, I > mean the confrontations that happen in front of most of the > school). In fact, it's practically the other way around -- again, > we don't know whether Harry could muster the influence to get all > the students to point and laught at Draco, but we know from three > separate occasions that Draco can get at least a quarter, sometimes > even three-quarters, of the school to laugh at Harry, to publically > humiliate Harry or one of his friends. > Betsy Hp: Draco is not popular. He's the kid in the back of the classroom, or smoking behind the stairs, snarking at the popular boy. Draco doesn't "get" students to dislike Harry, IMO. He's just very quick to jump on the train when a controversy comes up and there's a group that decides they don't like Harry today. Draco didn't start or perpetuate the "Heir of Slytherin" rumors. Draco didn't create the controversy between Harry and Cedric during GoF. Etc., etc. All Draco did was take advantage. As to "social suicide" Draco's in the bad group anyway. He's never going to be looked at as anything but bad blood by members of any House not Slytherin. And members of House Slytherin are never going to look at anyone outside their house as people to befriend. So within his social circles, Draco's not at risk. And outside his social circles, Draco is already a pariah by virtue of his green and silver tie. > >>Amy: > > Nor does taking on said someone when said someone's friends > are around count, either -- that's not taking on the Man, that's > just not knowing when to quit (either while you're ahead, or > whenever). Betsy Hp: Draco doesn't know when to back down, that's absolutely true. And I was being a bit flippent when I refered to Harry as the "Man". I mean, I do think he's all golden and chosen and saintly perfect. But Harry isn't all powerful since he's just a little boy and a sad pathetic orphan. But that's part of the reason I'm glad someone was out there giving him crap and laughing when he fell, what with no parents to do same. Helped Harry build character. (Well, it *didn't* because Harry was already perfect apparently, but the *idea* was nice. ) > >>Mike: > > As to BMOC, isn't part of being a BMOC knowing and believing that > defines ones position? Can one be a reluctant BMOC? > Betsy Hp: Sure. Harry's a good example of it. > >>Mike: > And he *still* didn't get to go with the girl he wanted to. What > good is it being a BMOC if you still get beat out by a bigger BMOC? > Betsy Hp: Who said being a BMOC is always a rose garden? Though I will point out that Harry does get Cho in the end. Heck, she even comes back all eager to trip into his arms and has to be blocked by Ginny in DH. > >>Mike: > > Manipulated into believing the story, not necessarily agreeing with > all of the author's positions within the story. > Betsy Hp: Yeah. Isn't that what I said? All fiction is a form of manipulation. I'm not denigrating either JKR or her readers when I say that she's successful at it. > >>Mike: > I hate to burst your bubble Betsy but you got manipulated just > as much as the rest of us, dear. Mmm-hmm. > > If Draco pinged things for you, you must have found him believable, > no? > Betsy Hp: Of course. Again, didn't I say this already? Of course JKR manipulated me into buying into her world and caring for her characters. I suspect I fell for something JKR wasn't aware she was doing since the story-paths I was following all ending with a whimper. Or faded into nothingness. > >>Mike: > Didn't JKR say that Snape was a gift of a character, even though > she doesn't understand why people like him? (I think JKR must have > liked him a little too, but that's just a guess). > Betsy Hp: >From the way his story ended I think JKR must have despised Snape. And feared him. I've never seen an author run so hard away from a character of their own making. It was an odd thing to witness. I think JKR has a gift, but I think she was either too lazy or too... I don't know if it's cowardice or dishonesty or what... but she set up all of these delicious questions and then failed to answer them. She set up all these story lines and then left them by the wayside. And she gave us all of these wonderful characters and than strangled the life out of them. (And I include Harry in this. As has been said before, JKR spoiled Harry in the same way Petunia spoiled Dudley.) All of the above is my opinion of course. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Frankly, the DA group echoed so much about the Hitler Youth to > > me it was a little bit scary. > >>Mike: > Oh, the Hitler Youth was a subversive organization, formed by those > youths, against the in-place government's wishes, learning things > the government didn't want them to know? Or was it the Hitler > Youth's encouragment for spying on your neighbor, reporting any > remotely subversive people or anti-government ideas that evinced a > parallel to the DA? Hmm, different History books I'd imagine. Betsy Hp: 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. There was also the cult of personality that led to the lack of a rule of law or a moral code governing behavior that caused a comparison for me as well. And of course Hermione and her lies. (Hermione strikes me as the perfect little Nazi -- anything for her cause, no matter the body count.) Betsy Hp From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 21:02:22 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:02:22 -0000 Subject: Why did Voldemort die though he had Harry's blood? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177358 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > Dumbledore says in King's Cross that Voldemort is wrong to think > Harry's blood will strengthen him. zanooda: I believe that Harry's blood could never protect LV the way it protected Harry. Lily's sacrifice didn't make Harry immortal, it just gave him protection from LV and LV alone, and not from any danger in the world. I think that's why DD told Snape it is essential that LV kills Harry himself. If someone else killed Harry, the soul-bit would have been destroyed, but Harry would have died (even though LV was still alive), because he is not protected from other people, only from LV. Harry can stay alive under two conditions: 1. His blood must remain in someone living (LV), and 2. He must be killed by LV himself. Harry's blood in LV's veins has the same protection - it protects from LV, which makes no sense at all. How can it help LV survive? Maybe if Voldie suddenly started hating himself :-), and decided to commit suicide (hard to imagine)- the blood protection could have stopped him from hurting himself - I don't know, even this is doubtful. As it is, LV died, because, despite the fact that he shared blood with still living Harry, he didn't kill himself. I mean, maybe technically he did :-), but it was not his intention. It was more like an accident, he didn't direct that AK at himself. Or maybe Harry's blood never protected LV at all, maybe it can only protect Harry and no one else. BTW, reading this thread, I had an impression that posters understand the situation differently. Some of them, including the original poster (sorry if I'm wrong :-), think that Harry's and LV's blood is the same blood (Harry's), and, judging by the answers, other posters believe that LV only has a drop of Harry's blood, and the rest of LV's blood is his own (pre-GH, I suppose). To be clear, this post is based on "the same blood" premise :-). From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 21:26:45 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:26:45 -0000 Subject: Draco's Popularity/Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177359 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" wrote: > Betsy Hp: > Draco is not popular. He's the kid in the back of the classroom, or smoking behind the stairs, snarking at the popular boy. Draco > doesn't "get" students to dislike Harry, IMO. He's just very quick > to jump on the train when a controversy comes up and there's a group that decides they don't like Harry today. <<>> ***Katie: I disagree that Draco is: 1 - Unpopular, or 2 - Some kind of James Dean rebel. Draco, from day one, is very obviously a popular student within his house. He has a group of followers - not just Crabbe and Goyle, but Pansy Parkinson and others, who laugh at his jokes, worship his status as a pure blood from a wealthy and important family, and just outright like him. Sure, his father bought his way onto the Quidditch team, instead of him earning it, but he got to stay on the team. All the times that Draco is publicly mocking or baiting HRH, the rest of the school easily and willingly falls in line. Why? Because Draco obviously has a powerful and magnetic personality. If he was unpopular, would the whole school have been wearing "Potter Stinks" badges? NO. If he was unpopular, would the whole of Slytherin house been singing "Weasley is our King". No. And all the times in Care of Magical Creatures, when Draco baits Hagrid and everyone except HRH laughs and goes along. Draco is not unpopular. Children and teenagers do not copy and follow an unpopular person. And many people at Hogwarts copy and follow Draco. I agree with you that Draco doesn't get people to dislike Harry...at least, not permanently. But he has a lot to do with keeping negative attitudes towards Harry going strong, and he certainly has a lot of influence within Slytherin to make people mock and ridicule HRH. Maybe Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws are naturally more allied with Gryffindors, but throughout the books, there are MANY times when the ONLY people that support Harry are other Gryffindors, and sometimes not even them! And Draco certainly helps to fan the flames, even when he didn't start the fire. He is not without influence over other students. He's a pretty popular kid. KATIE From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 21:32:21 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:32:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <223334.1190648318538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177360 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky wrote: > Now, for reasons I can guess, but are not at all clear in canon, in > order for this thing to work, Harry had to believe that he was > sacrificing himself, and Morty had to have no idea of what was > going to happen (my best guess, and it's only a guess, is that > Harry needed to believe he was going to die in order to fully > expose the Mortysoul to the AK). Yes, it's a very confusing part. Why did Harry need to believe that he is sacrificing himself? Why wasn't he allowed to know that he may survive? I thought about it so much, and I still don't have an answer. Here is the only explanation I came up with (it is in some agreement with your guess, which gave me the courage to write about it): DD was afraid that if Harry fought for his life or even just hoped to survive, the blood protection would kick in and LV's AK would rebound again (like in GH), so the soul-bit wouldn't be destroyed. Maybe Harry needed to embrace death in order for the AK to work, and to embrace death you need to believe firmly that it is coming. It's a rather weak explanation, but it's the only one I could think of :-). zanooda From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Mon Sep 24 21:48:47 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:48:47 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177361 Sometimes I like to fantasies I'm JKR's editor and what I'd do to change her text. I'll restrict myself to changes I am able enough to actually accomplish, that is, changing a few words or at most a few sentences. I think it would have been better if Percy were a traitor and a Death Eater, but that would take a major rewrite, and that is something I am incapable of, so I'll ignore that. The scene is right after Harry demonstrates the enormous power of the Elder wand by fixing the supposedly unfixable Phoenix feather wand and Harry says he doesn't want to keep the Elder Wand and intends to return it to Dumbledore's tomb: Hermione: I don't think that will work Harry. Dumbledore's Portrait: Unfortunately Hermione is right Harry. Even if you don't use it you are still the master of the Elder Wand and ever will be, and now everybody knows all about it. If you don't want that wand falling into the wrong hands then you must not be defeated, and the only way to ensure that is to use the most powerful wand you can find to defend yourself. I imagine you will be able to do a great deal of good in the next century with that wand, even if it does condemn you to having an interesting life. But that's all in the far future, right now feel free to go to your poster bed, you have earned a good night's sleep, and I'll see to it that Kreature has a nice big bacon sandwich waiting for you before you sleep. In the Epilog the first thing I'd do is erase the last 3 words, "all is well" it is a little too much like "and they lived happily ever after". And then just to drive fans crazy as they speculate on just what was gong on I'd say that as Harry walked along Platform 9 3/4 he did so with a slight limp, and then when he waves his departing son goodbye he does so "with his good hand". Imagine the intense speculation those few words would generate! Harry has a loving wife and three great kids that adore him, and that is just about the definition of a good life; but the above would hint that the past 19 years have not been entirely uneventful. And by the way, in book 6 when Slughorn says the fumes from the Love Potion rise in a characteristic spiral pattern I'd change it to "a characteristic helical pattern. And in Goblet of Fire, I wouldn't have dust rising out of Voldemort's father's gave; I'd have a large slightly smelly skull. Eggplant From celizwh at intergate.com Mon Sep 24 22:32:56 2007 From: celizwh at intergate.com (houyhnhnm102) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:32:56 -0000 Subject: Water Traits (was: Back to Slytherin House) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177362 Catlady: > And, umm, I need someone else to explain the > Air aspects of Love. houyhnhnm: Humanitarianism. Love of beauty, words, abstract mathematical concepts. Love of harmony. Neither eros nor agape, but philia characterizes air, I think. From vixinalizardqueen at hotmail.com Mon Sep 24 22:49:52 2007 From: vixinalizardqueen at hotmail.com (vixinalizardqueen) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:49:52 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <10e.1d89e882.2b61dfc1@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177363 Snuffles: > I just picked up PS to read again- yes, I know I wonder if I will > ever read anything but HP again- and on pg. 12 UK in the > description of Albus Dumbledore > > ' His blue eyes were light, bright and sparkling behind half moon > spectacles, and his nose was very long and crooked, as though it > had been broken at least twice.' > > PS is my least favourite of the books, and thus I don't read it as > much as the others, but something occurred to me when I read this > line. In GoF, JKR talks about Bagman's nose and how it looked as if > it had been broken by a stray bludger- paraphrased here... > > So, I guess what struck me is that perhaps this description of > Dumbledore alludes to the fact that Albus played Quidditch as well. vixinalizardqueen: Sorry if someone has already replied to this, but in DH, pg.131, Ron's Aunty Muriel says: "Didn't Aberforth break Albus's nose halfway through [Ariana's funeral service]?" So while the broken nose was significant, it was not because Albus played quidditch:) From cottell at dublin.ie Mon Sep 24 23:15:15 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:15:15 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Antinomianism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177364 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > You speak of "tricking goblins," but Griphook (whom Harry had > carried to safety and whose broken legs had been healed and fed and > given refuge in a safe house by wizards) was not tricked. Mus responds: Oh, the last thing I wanted to suggest was that Griphook was a cuddly misunderstood little innocent. I *know* he's a twisted, duplicitous little trouble-maker. But it comes back, for me, to the whole question of non-Wizard magical peoples, which was discussed before from Sister Magpie's post at #176421(or so) on. This is another of the strands of the larger story that I was puzzled by. From at least the introduction of centaurs in PS, house elves in CoS, right through the merpeople in GoF and probably also in the Grawp story line, JKR seemed to be taking the line that non-Wizard magical peoples *shouldn't* be regarded as subserviant - that their separate identities and aspirations should be respected. That was, for me, the point of Harry's later reaction to the statue in the fountain in the Ministry - its portrayal of goblins, house-elves and centaurs as lesser than witches and wizards was something we were supposed, through our HarryVision, to suspect. The RW analogy is that human rights should be extended to them too, and wanting to do it was a worthwhile goal. Furthermore, doing it dishonestly, without consulting them, as Hermione did with her knitting, wasn't the right way to go about it. There was no necessity for JKR to take this line, but she did take it. One of the things that made me uncomfortable while reading DH was the way that it switches to supporting the status quo - house- elves like being enslaved and disregarding goblin views on property is not only necessary but right. I was genuinely puzzled as to why JKR would put in something that so clearly mirrored native people's property rights, and then blow it apart. As I said when I made the parallel between Native American views of land ownership, admitting the validity of a different set of views doesn't entail that having such views doesn't mean that the holder is morally better or incapable of venality. I'm not suggesting that Griphook is necessarily morally superior, nor that he didn't betray them. But Harry was, as Bill suspected, setting out to trick them. If we hadn't had the "separate but equal" message in earlier books, there would be much less of a problem. But we did have it, and it was once one of the things that made us (or at least me) think part of the narrative involved wider moral change in the WW. Instead, what I saw was moral reversion to the mean on behalf of our heroes, although something else had been trailed: " 'I'm sure they'll never go over to You-Know-Who,' said Mr Weasley, shaking his head. 'They've suffered losses too; remember that goblin family he murdered last time, somewhere near Nottingham?' 'I think it depends on what they're offered,', said Lupin. 'And I'm not talking about gold. If they're offered the freedoms we've been denying them for centuries, they're going to be tempted. Have you had any luck with Ragnok, Bill?' " [OotP, UK hb: 81] So yes, Carol, I'll agree with you that Griphook is an ungrateful little horror. But he is a representative of a race that we've been told has been treated rather high-handedly by wizards for centuries - I raised an elegant eyebrow when we then got Harry meting out similar treatment in DH. More moral muddle, for this reader. Mus, who hopes this makes sense. From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Mon Sep 24 23:36:16 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:36:16 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) Message-ID: <20070925093616.CUH52859@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177365 Allie: Yikes! That's actually a little bit backwards that the trio is drawn to look like the actors. The actor who plays Ron Weasley doesn't really look like JKR's description (he doesn't have a long nose OR freckles!) I sort of picture Harry as cute, and I don't think any of the male characters are really described as handsome, are they? Ginny is supposed to be quite pretty, but Cedric is the only male student of the current generation I can recall who was supposed to be handsome. Sharon: That's funny, because when I saw the first movie I thought the actors who played Harry, Ron and Hermione (and also Draco, Neville and Ginny, and the rest of the weasleys) were perfect representations of how I saw the book characters. I thought they did a pretty good job. Has Rupert Grint got freckles? I really hadn't noticed either way, but traditionally redheads do have freckles so even if JKR didn't mention them, they're not out of the realm of possibility. I do find though, that as the actors grow older, they look less like the book characters are described, especially Dan Radcliffe, who isn't scrawny enough for Harry. JMO. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From scarl26 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 23:12:33 2007 From: scarl26 at yahoo.com (scarl26) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 23:12:33 -0000 Subject: reality and escapism Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177366 It's interesting how H Potter can weave an escape that echoes our own world. I think it is all the more powerful because it uses emotions, interests and challenges from our own, and allow us to divide into them from new symbolic angles. What do you guys think about escapism, reality and fantasy? scarl26 From mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com Mon Sep 24 23:42:06 2007 From: mohalagirl25 at yahoo.com (Amy Klein) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:42:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <520407.72894.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177367 > Snuffles: > > > I just picked up PS to read again and on pg. 12 UK in the > description of Albus Dumbledore > > ' His blue eyes were light, bright and sparkling behind half moon > spectacles, and his nose was very long and crooked, as though it > had been broken at least twice.' > > >> vixinalizardqueen: >> Sorry if someone has already replied to this, but in DH, pg.131, Ron's Aunty Muriel says: "Didn't Aberforth break Albus's nose halfway through [Ariana's funeral service]?" So while the broken nose was significant, it was not because Albus played quidditch:) << Mohalagirl25: I must add that the Funeral incident only explains one time the nose was broken. Snuffles quote mentions that the nose looked like it was broken twice. Can someone find any cannon that could explain the second break? Or is it just wording on JKR's behalf to really get the picture across of what Albus looked like? Just my thoughts. Amy From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 25 00:32:09 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:32:09 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Draco - Antinomianism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177368 Mus: > > There was no necessity for JKR to take this line, but she did take > it. One of the things that made me uncomfortable while reading DH > was the way that it switches to supporting the status quo - house- > elves like being enslaved and disregarding goblin views on property > is not only necessary but right. I was genuinely puzzled as to why > JKR would put in something that so clearly mirrored native people's > property rights, and then blow it apart. More moral muddle, for this reader. Pippin: Goblin rebellions were canon from early on and the reason Hermione was never hipped on goblin rights. She knew about their history and she felt they could take care of themselves. I always felt her approach to civil rights was a bit shallow: more about making her feel good than about what the peoples of the WW really needed. In any case there is a big difference between making moral pronouncements and putting them into action. Armchair moralizing is easy -- trusting a goblin who seems to be both greedy and bloodthirsty when you've been told some goblins might be on Lord Voldemort's side, turned out to be too hard. Harry definitely was not comfortable with what he was doing, though, and of course he lost the sword. When a hero loses a signature weapon, it generally means he has done something unworthy of it. The same dilemma applies to the House Elves. Armchair theorizing that House Elves should all be set free runs up against stark realities: House Elves don't want to be freed, and don't do well when freed against their will. House Elves, except Dobby, do like being enslaved. That was canon from the beginning, Hermione just refused to believe it. But this is not as bizarre as it seems: the phrase "slave mentality" was not coined to describe the condition of House Elves. Setting free the Elves remains a worthy goal but more distant than Hermione imagined. Pippin From starview316 at yahoo.ca Tue Sep 25 00:34:02 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 00:34:02 -0000 Subject: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177369 > Betsy Hp: > Draco is not popular. He's the kid in the back of the classroom, or > smoking behind the stairs, snarking at the popular boy. Draco > doesn't "get" students to dislike Harry, IMO. He's just very quick > to jump on the train when a controversy comes up and there's a group > that decides they don't like Harry today. > > Draco didn't start or perpetuate the "Heir of Slytherin" rumors. > Draco didn't create the controversy between Harry and Cedric during > GoF. Etc., etc. All Draco did was take advantage. Amy: He doesn't have to be popular; I wasn't arguing who would beat whom in a genuine popularity contest. He does, however, have the influence necessary to turn more people on Harry/Ron than they can turn on him. Which is why I'm arguing here in the first place (although I do agree with your assessment that Draco, in a way, was good for Harry -- character-building-wise). Exactly which train did Draco jump on when he was entertaining the Slytherins with the fainting dramatics? Or when he came up with Weasley is Our King (something that a lot of the school soon picked up, and long before Ron actually helped win the Quidditch Cup)? Betsy Hp: > As to "social suicide" Draco's in the bad group anyway. He's never > going to be looked at as anything but bad blood by members of any > House not Slytherin. And members of House Slytherin are never going > to look at anyone outside their house as people to befriend. So > within his social circles, Draco's not at risk. And outside his > social circles, Draco is already a pariah by virtue of his green and > silver tie. Amy: Even if you argue from the standpoint that the entire school has a vendetta against Slytherin (which I really think is reaching -- aside from when they're actively antagonizing other students, we've never seen the students of Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw be outright hostile to the Slytherins -- in fact, we actually see them borrow from said Slytherins on a few occasions), that doesn't discount the fact that Draco's social circle is apparently larger, or at least more willing to bow to his whims, than Harry's is. Whatever their relationship is with the rest of the school, Slytherin still makes up a quarter of the students, which is quite a lot of students; and Harry has never gotten the entirety of Gryffindor House on Draco's back before. Amy From juli17 at aol.com Tue Sep 25 02:01:13 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (juli17 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:01:13 EDT Subject: Antinomianism - Draco - the DA Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177370 Mike: Voldemort is not dead either. He's at the same Way Station as Harry. And it was explained to us in "The Flaw in the Plan": "It's your one last chance," said Harry, "it's all you've got left ... I've seen what you'll be otherwise ... Be a man ... try ... Try for some remorse ..." It is a *chance*, Voldemort's final disposition is not yet decided, what he will become *otherwise* connotes that there is an alternative ending to that flayed soulbit. And as I asked in my previous post, what chance is this? A chance to leave that Way Station and go to Hell? What would be the point? Also, as I said above, JKR doesn't have wizard Heaven and Hell, she has *going on* or not. It seems to me that that is the *chance* we are talking about here, the chance to *go on*. If JKR has Voldemort, the most evil character in the Potterverse, with still the chance to avoid being "damned" for all eternity, then I don't believe she wrote a story where all Slytherins are damned from the time they are sorted, either. Julie: Voldemort is a special case though. Technically, you're correct that he does have a chance to avoid being "damned." But he is also a psychopath, so he is inherently incapable of the remorse he must feel to avoid damnation. Thus the choice he is being offered by Harry is meaningless. (This duality comes from JKR, who said Voldemort is a psychopath and is less culpable because he has never loved, and within the text from the commentary about Tom Riddle being unresponsive to human contact even as a baby--i.e. born a psychopath.) Which leaves us with a situation that has no honest resolution. Voldemort must feel remorse to save his soul, yet he can't feel remorse, thus he can't save his soul... As for Slytherin House, I don't think they are damned when they are sorted, but they are given horribly difficult path to hoe. Gryffindors have merely to skip down the daisy-lined yellow brick road to their salvation, armed as they already are with their indoctrination by family and friends into the correct value system, and assisted from sidelines if they start to slip by their teachers, mates and all the "good" people of their society who are invested in not letting them fall. Meanwhile, Slytherins have to claw their way up a steep path, pelted mercilessly by the evil value system instilled in them by their childhood indoctrination, *and* by the acceptance and continued pounding in of the evil value system in their new House at Hogwarts, with no one on the sidelines interested in lending them a hand to keep them from sliding back down that slippery slope (and not a few ready and willing to give them a push straight down). So yes, they've got a choice, but it's no walk in the park as it is for certain others ;-) (And, yes, this does make Peter Pettigrew a rather contradictory piece of work, but he is a completely incomprehensible character as written, to me anyway.) Julie, who likes to repeat periodically that we are talking about *children* here, and a school full of teachers who do *not* have the best interests of the children they are teaching (and literally raising) at heart, except sometimes for those within their own Houses... ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 02:27:29 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:27:29 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177371 kneazlecat54 wrote: > > > > > Hestia tells Harry that Mad-Eye will give him the details, but that the Dursleys must leave so that they will be far enough away to Disapparate at the same moment that Harry leaves Privet Drive for > > good, thus breaking the protective enchantment that Lily gave him. > > > > > > Carol responds: > > Ihope you don't mind my pointing out here that the > protective enchantment that's ending is Dumbledore's, which was > based on Lily's blood protection. > > Laura: > Really? So the same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a > parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW? Carol: Help. Let me see if I can clarify here. The blood protection that *Lily* provided came about because she had a chance to live but chose to die instead, apparently a unique occurrence in the WW until Harry's choice to sacrifice himself in some ways replicates it. *That* protection continues into the fight with Voldemort through the drop of Harry's protected blood in Voldemort's veins that enables the soulbit in the scar to be destroyed without killing Harry. But the blood protection that *Dumbledore* placed on 4 Privet Drive is different, based on Lily's sacrifice but using her blood connection with Petunia to protect Harry. Essentially, Petunia sealed a magical pact by taking Harry in. As long as Harry can call 4 Privet Drive home, *there* (and only there) he cannot be harmed. *That's* the protection that expires when Harry turns seventeen. So, exactly. "The same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW." Protection like *Lily's* only came about because she had a choice to live and chose to die instead. *That's* why the Killing Curse backfired for the only time in WW history (until the plot arc comes full circle in "The Flaw in the Plan"). But the additional protection provided by Harry's staying with his sister's "blood" (Petunia) occurred because of an additional protective charm placed by Dumbledore. Carol, who can find the canon if necessary to clarify the distinction between the blood protection placed by DD on Privet Drive and the original protection provided by Lily's sacrifice, which DD's spell builds on and extends From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 25 02:33:43 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:33:43 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: <20070925093616.CUH52859@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177372 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Sharon: > That's funny, because when I saw the first movie I > thought the actors who played Harry, Ron and > Hermione (and also Draco, Neville and Ginny, and the > rest of the weasleys) were perfect representations > of how I saw the book characters. I thought they did > a pretty good job. Has Rupert Grint got freckles? I > really hadn't noticed either way, but traditionally > redheads do have freckles so even if JKR didn't > mention them, they're not out of the realm of > possibility. > Allie: Ron Weasley has a long nose and loads of freckles. Rupert Grint has neither, unless they're putting so much makeup on him you can't see the freckles anymore. (I still think he does a good job.) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 03:51:52 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:51:52 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allies426" wrote: > Ron Weasley has a long nose and loads of freckles. Rupert Grint has > neither, unless they're putting so much makeup on him you can't see > the freckles anymore. (I still think he does a good job.) It's not only nose and freckles, book!Ron is also slim and tall. "He was tall, thin and gangling, with freckles, big hands and feet and a long nose". Rupert Grint doesn't have any of that, and he has physically very little in common with Ron - red hair mostly (I didn't notice the color of his eyes - Ron's are supposed to be blue). However, I don't mind all this, because I believe that he is a good actor. zanooda, who hopes this post won't be moved to the movie list, because it contains a canon reference ... From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 04:21:05 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 04:21:05 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <520407.72894.qm@web44808.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Amy Klein wrote: > I must add that the Funeral incident only explains one time the nose > was broken. Snuffles quote mentions that the nose looked like it was > broken twice. Can someone find any cannon that could explain the > second break? zanooda: Maybe Aberforth hit him twice :-)! I wonder why DD didn't fix his nose. Was it because he felt he deserved a broken nose, or maybe he just looked in a mirror and liked what he saw :-)? And why didn't Bagman get *his* nose fixed? From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Sep 25 05:27:43 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2007 22:27:43 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TULIP, was Re: Dark Book - Draco - Calvinism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709242227t184db9b0l5da0abbf22d7e84e@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177375 lizzybean: The Church of Scotland is a traditional Reformed (Calvinist) church. I don't know what doctrines JKR personally subscribes to. But I do think it's safe to say that she is a Calvinist - she is a member of a Calvinist church & has attended that church for 12+ years, christianed her child there, etc Lynda: It probably is safe to say that, but, there could have been other reasons for her choice of a church than Calvinistic beliefs. I attended a university that teaches Calvinism (to the exclusion of Arminianism) and have never subscribed to that doctrine. It made me look at both sides of the doctrine to attend that school, though. In the long run, whatever her beliefs, she seems to have done a good job combining the idea of a Calvinistic type destiny within a more flexible system where it concerns HP. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 25 14:38:42 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 10:38:42 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) Message-ID: <1758183.1190731122354.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177376 From: zanooda2 >It's not only nose and freckles, book!Ron is also slim and tall. "He >was tall, thin and gangling, with freckles, big hands and feet and a >long nose". Rupert Grint doesn't have any of that, and he has >physically very little in common with Ron - red hair mostly (I didn't >notice the color of his eyes - Ron's are supposed to be blue). However, >I don't mind all this, because I believe that he is a good actor. Bart: Going back to a previous topic of "fantasy casting" of movies (which puts this on-topic), Hermoine has pronounced buck teeth until they get fixed (I don't have the books handy, but I'm pretty sure it first gets noticed at the Yule Ball in GOF, so that's probably where it took place). Americans like to make fun of British dentistry, but her parents ARE supposed to be British detnists... If I had to cast Harry Potter movies, I would find a young girl who looks like she will grow up pretty, and "ugly" her up some, rather than, say, just mussing up her hair a little like some less imaginative movie maker might do. Bart From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 25 15:34:09 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:34:09 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177377 "zanooda2" wrote: > Why wasn't he [Harry] allowed to > know that he may survive? Because Dumbledore did not think Harry would survive; and if everything had gone according to Dumbledore's plan and Harry had killed the snake before he confronted Voldemort in the forest he most certainly would have been killed. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 16:07:11 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:07:11 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177378 Bart Lidofsky wrote: > > > Now, for reasons I can guess, but are not at all clear in canon, in order for this thing to work, Harry had to believe that he was sacrificing himself, and Morty had to have no idea of what was going to happen (my best guess, and it's only a guess, is that Harry needed to believe he was going to die in order to fully expose the Mortysoul to the AK). > zanooda replied: > Yes, it's a very confusing part. Why did Harry need to believe that he is sacrificing himself? Why wasn't he allowed to know that he may survive? I thought about it so much, and I still don't have an answer. Here is the only explanation I came up with (it is in some agreement with your guess, which gave me the courage to write about it): > > DD was afraid that if Harry fought for his life or even just hoped to survive, the blood protection would kick in and LV's AK would rebound again (like in GH), so the soul-bit wouldn't be destroyed. Maybe Harry needed to embrace death in order for the AK to work, and to embrace death you need to believe firmly that it is coming. It's a rather weak explanation, but it's the only one I could think of :-). Carol responds: As I understand it, Harry's willing self-sacrifice echoes his mother's. He can't fight back or so much as lift a wand or the ancient Love magic won't work. His only chance for survival is to allow Voldemort to "kill" him, destroying the soul bit and activating the love protection in his blood, which will continue as long as Voldemort is alive. If Harry had destroyed all the Horcruxes, Voldie would have been mortal, and Harry's AK if he cast one would have killed Voldie, killing Harry along with him. Carol, whose explanation works for her even if it doesn't work for anyone else From ida3 at planet.nl Tue Sep 25 16:23:49 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:23:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177379 Eggplant: > Because Dumbledore did not think Harry would survive; and if > everything had gone according to Dumbledore's plan and Harry had > killed the snake before he confronted Voldemort in the forest he > most certainly would have been killed. Dana Nonsense, as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry could go back. Voldemort did not drop dead when Neville killed Nagini either. He would surely not have died if the event, of Harry's supposed death, had taken place after Nagini was taken care off. He still had the soul bit residing in his body and without actively killing that part of his soul, he would not just have dropped death because Harry did [not]. Voldemort couldn't die because each individual soul pieces would keep him bound to the living world. If his conscious soul died then it could not depart because the other bits kept it from crossing over but that doesn't mean that if these pieces would no longer be there that he would spontaneous combust or something. To me, it seems that the only reason Voldemort was down on his knees, after what happened to Harry, was because of the mind link Harry shared with LV (that was probably broken forcefully) and not because the soul bit died. The crying creature at Kings Cross was the soul bit attached to Harry because if it had been LV conscious soul then he would surely have experienced the events at the same time Harry did but Voldemort had no clue Harry was not really death or what would become of him if he died. It would surely had increased his fear of death by a tenfold (at least) but as we see in the final scene, he surely wasn't worried about it more then he ever was before, not even when Harry told him no horcruxes where left. Just my two cents and opinion of course. Dana From shannon_miller4242 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 16:16:28 2007 From: shannon_miller4242 at yahoo.com (Shannon Miller) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:16:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dumbledore Message-ID: <944496.23144.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177380 >zanooda: >Maybe Aberforth hit him twice :-)! I wonder why DD didn't fix his nose. >Was it because he felt he deserved a broken nose, or maybe he just >looked in a mirror and liked what he saw :-)? And why didn't Bagman get >*his* nose fixed? Because chicks dig scars...? : > Seriously, bodily scars, like tattoos, are something that commemorates an event. It's a little sad to have something like that removed for sometimes, almost like forgetting... -- Shannon From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Sep 25 16:38:11 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:38:11 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <944496.23144.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <944496.23144.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8186352D-171E-42DD-B1AE-07A4CE7BEC3D@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177381 On 2007, Sep 25, , at 08:16, Shannon Miller wrote: >> zanooda: > >> Maybe Aberforth hit him twice :-)! I wonder why DD didn't fix his >> nose. >> Was it because he felt he deserved a broken nose, or maybe he just >> looked in a mirror and liked what he saw :-)? And why didn't >> Bagman get >> *his* nose fixed? > > Because chicks dig scars...? : > > > Seriously, bodily scars, like tattoos, are something that > commemorates an event. It's a little sad to have something like > that removed for sometimes, almost like forgetting... > -- > Shannon And maybe it matches the scar on his knee that is a perfect map of the London Underground - though I never could quite figure out why Dumbledore would need a map of the London Underground. And the image of him checking his scar to see where to get on or off the Underground is also rather amusing. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Sep 25 17:11:37 2007 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:11:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <013001c7ff97$2447d360$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 177382 > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Amy Klein > wrote: > >> I must add that the Funeral incident only explains one time the nose >> was broken. Snuffles quote mentions that the nose looked like it was >> broken twice. Can someone find any cannon that could explain the >> second break? > > zanooda: > > Maybe Aberforth hit him twice :-)! I wonder why DD didn't fix his nose. > Was it because he felt he deserved a broken nose, or maybe he just > looked in a mirror and liked what he saw :-)? And why didn't Bagman get > *his* nose fixed? It strikes me that with athletes, you can set the broken nose, but the constant bumping of it really means that it never stays "set". In other words, they don't take two weeks off to let it heal properly. Notice Krum also shows the bent nose. But, I agree that the MAGICAL healing spells to fix the nose are instantaneous, so even in Quidditch matches, the fix should be within hours of the break, leaving no trace. I can only imagine Dumbledore left that pain so he could "stew" in it. But for Krum and Bagman, maybe it's a "cool wizard thing", or as someone else stated "cool with the chicks!" There isn't cannon for the 2nd break, but since Dumbledore did well with a broom, we might be able to assume Quidditch. Again, maybe he liked looking roughed up, as if to say that he had lead a good life. That reminds me of a quote to not let your body arrive in heaven in perfect condition, but to just slide in with your body well used as if to show that you had a good time doing it! Shelley From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Tue Sep 25 17:38:59 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 17:38:59 -0000 Subject: reality and escapism In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177383 > It's interesting how H Potter can weave an escape that echoes our own > world. I think it is all the more powerful because it uses emotions, > interests and challenges from our own, and allow us to divide into them > from new symbolic angles. > > What do you guys think about escapism, reality and fantasy? > > scarl26 > It is hard to know where to start a reply to this as it could lead in so many directions. It could be argued that reading any fiction is 'escapist' as all books are set in a 'fictional' world even if it is 'our' world. I have just read 'Bleak House' which is set in the 'real' 19th Century but it is not the 'real' historical 19th Century as the characters did not actually exist. But by reading it I gain a greater understanding of that period as Dicken wrote out of his own life experience. I also gain insights into human nature due to the vivid characters he provides. Once we move into 'Fantasy' literature we have obviously moved further from our own 'reality'. Some people cannot understand how adults can like 'fantasy' as they perceive it as something one should outgrow. But I continue to find that books such as Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings have led me to think harder and in more depth about the 'real' world than most of the 'real world' fiction I have read. It is probably something to do with the way 'fantasy' literature roots itself deep into myths and legends. The archetypes that are then used and reused seem almost hard-wired into the human psyche which is why so many of us respond to them. Joseph Cooper's book 'The Hero with Thousand Faces' talks about what he call 'the Mono-myth and shows how numerous stories draw on the same structure, Harry Potter being one of the most recent. I have found that one of the most rewarding aspects of Harry Potter has been the way it has sent me off in search of other literature and had me delving into Wikipedia for defintions of new words I have encountered. For example because of my researches into Snape's character I now know the meaning of 'Byronic Hero'. So to conclude, I love fantasy because it enriches my life here in 'reality'. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 18:32:08 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 18:32:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <223334.1190648318538.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177384 > Bart: > Actually, Dumbledore's initial callousness towards Snape is out of character for him. As Dumbledore rarely does anything without a reason, it is reasonable to assume that there was a reason behind this, as well. ... Yet, Snape had let himself be used as a pawn. In a different time, or in a different house, Snape may well have become what Gildylocks pretended to be (well, without the award winning smile). lizzyben: Snape was used as a pawn until the day he died. First he was LV's pawn, then DD's pawn. Bart: > I have mentioned before that Snape reminded me, to a certain extent, of the young Ebeneezer Scrooge from A CHRISTMAS CAROL; notably, the memory from DH where Lily finally breaks it off is reminiscent of when Scrooge's fiance breaks off the relationship, realizing that Scrooge would always love gold more than her. But, while Marley arranged for Scrooge to have a chance to turn around before it was too late, it was already too late for Snape. It took endangering Lily for him to see the path he was on, but he was unable to save her. Dumbledore's initial attitude towards Snape was because Snape still had not fully comprehended the enormity of what he had done; in order for Snape's repentance to be complete, he needed that callousness. Note that, once Snape has set on the path to redemption, Dumbledore's attitude towards him turned around. lizzyben: I just want to say one thing re: the DD/Snape relationship. In that first meeting, DD didn't give a d*** about Snape's redemption or making him see the light or whatever. Snape was simply a Death Eater, a potentially useful tool. And he treats him w/customary coolness - until Snape begs DD to save Lily Evan's life. Then DD responds with "You disgust me." It wasn't Snape's evil that disgusted DD. He was perfectly cordial to Voldemort, after all. No, it was Snape's sheer human wretchedness & desperation that disgusted DD. If Snape had come to DD that day w/his plan for world domination, DD would have been perfectly polite. Once he'd demanded payment from Snape & made him a double agent, he continued to pressure, manipulate, and lie to Snape. And that continued until the end of their relationship. DD lied to Snape much more than Snape even knew - for a fun game, count all the times DD says something to Snape "without looking up" or "with his eyes closed." He's lying. He averts eye contact so that Snape can't use Legimency on him. Snape, poor trusting soul, believes him. After all the debate about whether DD should trust Snape, IMO a better question is whether Snape should have trusted DD (I vote no). Bart: > As far as Harry goes, I would not call the attitude a callousness. Here is the problem, as I see it. Since Harry was not a regular Horcrux, Dumbledore had hopes that the Mortysoul could be removed from Harry without killing him. But it wasn't until Morty insisted on using Harry's blood in his reincarnation that Dumbledore saw how it could be done (if Dumbledore WAS callous, there would have been no "gleam of triumph" in GOF). lizzyben: So, up till the end of GOF, DD thought Harry would have to be a child sacrifice for his cause. He just has to make sure Harry is willing to do it - and so the brainwashing begins. He keeps Harry in an abusive home so Harry will be totally grateful to escape that he's willing to do anything to save his new home. DD poses as a benevolent father figure for Harry, winning Harry's love & undying loyalty (not that hard for a love-starved child). Then he sends Harry to face off against Quirrell/LV as... practice. Oh, yeah, DD knew what Quirrel was up to - he set up the entire trap for LV. ("Keep an eye on Quirrel.") It makes the COS scene all the creepier, no? DD rewards Harry for showing absolute loyalty to Him, praises him for being a True Gryffindor - cackling all the while about how well he has brainwashed this little boy. That's callous. Bart: Now, it's clear that, when Morty hit him with YAAK, it destroyed the Mortysoul in Harry, and knocked them both out and sent them to the inbetween world that Harry saw as King's Cross (Morty was the weird baby thingy). Now, for reasons I can guess, but are not at all clear in canon, in order for this thing to work, Harry had to believe that he was sacrificing himself, So, even to Snape, Dumbledore had to appear to be a callous manipulator when it came to Harry's death, or Harry wouldn't be convinced. In other words, if Dumbledore had let Harry know he was going to live, paradoxically, Harry would not have lived. lizzyben: "Appear" to be a callous manipulator? That doesn't explain why DD couldn't tell *Snape* about Harry's chance at survival. Or why he gave Snape the task to inform Harry, knowing there's almost zero chance Harry would listen to him. It also doesn't explain why DD never told Snape about the Elder Wand (so Snape could get Draco's wand) or the Horcruxes (so Snape could tell Harry that Belletrix had one). Or why he endangered the *entire Order* w/his illogical "Seven Potters" plan instead of just smuggling Harry out under an invisibility cloak. Or why DD left cute little gifts/clues instead of telling the Trio what the Hallows were. Or why he wanted them to get the Hallows at all. Or why he didn't just *give* Hermione the Horcrux book before he died. Or why he didn't just *give* Harry the Sword of Gryffindor before he died instead of that convoluted plan. For all DD's manipulations, Harry won out of sheer luck in the end. DD's actions were ruthless, and mostly useless. On a meta-level, JKR did this so that Harry can be a Christ-figure, yet still live. That's a tricky business. Harry has to believe that he is sacrificing himself for the good of humanity, or his sacrifice isn't as powerful. Yet he still needs to live so that he can beat LV & get a happy ending. So, there needs to be a loophole, but Harry can't know about it. That's the real reason. The convoluted, confusing plot-holes stem from the lack of any viable reason within the plot for this situation. > I wish that JKR had been clearer on this point. > > Bart lizzyben: I think, on this point, she was pretty clear. In general, DD withheld information & manipulated people because he liked the sense of power it gave him. At first he dreamed of having complete power over millions of Muggles, then he toned it down to settle w/having complete power over his devoted followers. But he never really changed. As Aberforth said, DD's the master of secrets & lies. DD liked seeing people as pawns that he could move around on the chess- board, not as partners or equal participants. Sometimes he'd sacrifice a pawn, and shrug. You could not pay me a million dollars to join any organization headed by Dumbledore. In some ways he was more evil than Voldemort. lizzyben From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Tue Sep 25 19:11:50 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:11:50 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177385 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > In the Epilog the first thing I'd do is erase the last 3 words, "all > is well" it is a little too much like "and they lived happily ever > after". And then just to drive fans crazy as they speculate on just > what was gong on I'd say that as Harry walked along Platform 9 3/4 he > did so with a slight limp, and then when he waves his departing son > goodbye he does so "with his good hand". Imagine the intense > speculation those few words would generate! Harry has a loving wife > and three great kids that adore him, and that is just about the > definition of a good life; but the above would hint that the past 19 > years have not been entirely uneventful. Geoff: Yes, I could buy into that version of the epilogue.... it would have had the fanfic writing brigade scrabbling for their biros. My only quibble would be that I have never been a fan of Ginny and was rather disappointed when Harry married her and obviously at a relatively early age. Eggplant: > And by the way, in book 6 when Slughorn says the fumes from the Love > Potion rise in a characteristic spiral pattern I'd change it to "a > characteristic helical pattern. > And in Goblet of Fire, I wouldn't have dust rising out of Voldemort's > father's gave; I'd have a large slightly smelly skull. Geoff: These last two left me somewhat puzzled. You have in the past expressed a wish for more dramatic events such as mayhem etc. including the wish that Harry should have killed Draco and suddenly you dive into minutiae such as mathematical curves and bones! Some mathematicians consider a spiral to be a specialised helix and why a smelly skull? What's the big picture? Do tell! From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 19:23:33 2007 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:23:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <013001c7ff97$2447d360$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177386 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > Notice Krum also shows the bent nose. Krum seems to have a naturally crooked nose. When his parents came to watch the third task, Harry noticed that Krum "inherited his father's hooked nose". OTOH, Krum refused the help of the healers after his nose was broken at the QWC, for whatever reason, so maybe you have something here :-). zanooda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 20:30:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:30:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's broken nose In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177387 zanooda wrote: > > Maybe Aberforth hit him twice :-)! Carol responds: Maybe it was a one-two punch? (For anyone unfamiliar with this expression, here's a definition: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/one-two%20punch ) zanooda: > I wonder why DD didn't fix his nose. Was it because he felt he deserved a broken nose, or maybe he just looked in a mirror and liked what he saw :-)? Carol responds: If any wizard knew "Episkey" (which appears to be a simple spell since Tonks performed it when she was depressed and Harry cast it perfectly the first time he tried), Albus Dumbledore would have known it, even in his late teens. So either the spell hadn't been invented yet or he chose not to perform it, probably because, as you suggest, he felt that he deserved it. Each time he looked in the mirror, he'd be reminded of his own guilt and folly. (Maybe that's why he grew such a long beard--didn't want to look in the mirror long enough to give himself a magical shave!) I wonder whether a broken nose can be fixed if it's allowed to heal broken or whether it would have to be rebroken and then fixed (like a Muggle's broken arm that's knit together crooked). zanooda: > And why didn't Bagman get *his* nose fixed? Carol: Knowing Ludo, he probably thought it looked jaunty or sporty (just as Fleur thinks that Bill's scars show that he's brave). (Maybe Mad-Eye Moody left the chunk out of his nose for a similar reason--either that or the chunk was caused by Dark magic similar to Sectumsempra and couldn't be healed.) Returning to Albus Dumbledore, he's not wholly indifferent to his appearance like the unkempt Aberforth and he has a taste for fancy robes and hats (in contrast to Snape, who still wears black as headmaster rather than green and silver like Phineas Nigellus), but his vanity seems to be reserved for his brilliance as opposed to his appearance. He was quite unself-conscious about his blackened hand, for example, despite its being both repellant and an indication of his own folly. I don't think he was punishing himself in that instance, however. I think he wanted it to be seen as a false indication that he was losing his powers, almost as an invitation to Draco and Voldemort to get on with the assassination attempt. Even Snape tells Bellatrix and Narcissa that his reactions aren't what they were when he knows perfectly well that the "serious injury" was caused by putting on a cursed ring. Carol, wondering whether JKR thought of DD when she invented "Episkey" and how she explained to herself his failure to use it From zgirnius at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 20:36:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 20:36:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's looks (Was: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty/ Draco) In-Reply-To: <20070925093616.CUH52859@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177388 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sharon Hayes wrote: > > Allie: > Yikes! That's actually a little bit backwards that > the trio is drawn to look like the actors. The actor > who plays Ron Weasley doesn't really look like JKR's > description (he doesn't have a long nose OR > freckles!) I sort of picture Harry as cute, and I > don't think any of the male characters are really > described as handsome, are they? Ginny is supposed > to be quite pretty, but Cedric is the only male > student of the current generation I can recall who > was supposed to be handsome. > > Sharon: > That's funny, because when I saw the first movie I > thought the actors who played Harry, Ron and > Hermione (and also Draco, Neville and Ginny, and the > rest of the weasleys) were perfect representations > of how I saw the book characters. I thought they did > a pretty good job. Has Rupert Grint got freckles? I > really hadn't noticed either way, but traditionally > redheads do have freckles so even if JKR didn't > mention them, they're not out of the realm of > possibility. zgirnius: Ron has freckles. In the OotP visit to St. Mungo's, one of the distinguished Healers in the portraits on the walls diagnoses him with spattergroit (spelling?) because of the awful splotches on his face. Ron explains this is just his freckles. (And I love how this disease makes a reappearanc ein the ghoul scheme in DH). From bartl at sprynet.com Tue Sep 25 20:42:40 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 16:42:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore Message-ID: <32233891.1190752961023.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177389 lizzyben: >Snape was used as a pawn until the day he died. First he was LV's >pawn, then DD's pawn. If you know you are not being given the whole picture, but are in agreement with the purpose, are you a pawn? And note that, to the end, Morty considered Snape to be a pawn. Unfortunately, if it weren't for the Elder Wand byplay, Snape might well have survived. However, JKR's morality required that he could only redeem himself in death. lizzyben: >I just want to say one thing re: the DD/Snape relationship. In that >first meeting, DD didn't give a d*** about Snape's redemption or >making him see the light or whatever. Snape was simply a Death >Eater, a potentially useful tool. And he treats him w/customary >coolness - until Snape begs DD to save Lily Evan's life. Then DD >responds with "You disgust me." It wasn't Snape's evil that >disgusted DD. He was perfectly cordial to Voldemort, after all. No, >it was Snape's sheer human wretchedness & desperation that >disgusted DD. If Snape had come to DD that day w/his plan for world >domination, DD would have been perfectly polite. That's the point. Have we been shown DD to be that frank with ANYBODY? The only time he is at all honest is when he's talking to someone he actually cares about. "You disgust me" is not something you say to someone you are trying to manipulate into being a pawn; it's someone you say to someone you are trying to change. Bart: >> As far as Harry goes, I would not call the attitude a callousness. >Here is the problem, as I see it. Since Harry was not a regular >Horcrux, Dumbledore had hopes that the Mortysoul could be removed >from Harry without killing him. But it wasn't until Morty insisted >on using Harry's blood in his reincarnation that Dumbledore saw how >it could be done (if Dumbledore WAS callous, there would have been >no "gleam of triumph" in GOF). lizzyben: >So, up till the end of GOF, DD thought Harry would have to be a >child sacrifice for his cause. Bart: Or, was actively trying to find a way to keep this from happening. All too often, one hears the phrase, "If it saves only one life." Well, what would the price of saving Harry's life be? Could anybody except for the most selfish be willing to pay that price? How many lives were lost just during DH, considering the persecution of Muggleborns. Once Morty started his conquest of the Muggle world, how many lives would have been lost? And how could DD have KEPT Morty from killing Harry anyway? At BEST, Morty would have kept Harry a prisoner for life, perhaps under IC (note that, while Harry was able to fight it, we are given implications that others can fight it, temporarily, too. Harry had no problem IC'ing several people, but the DE's mentioned difficulty in IC'ing Thicknesse; that certainly implies that Thicknesse had an ability to resist the curse, so they had to catch him alone so that they could make it strong enough to break his resistance. >Then he sends >Harry to face off against Quirrell/LV as... practice. Oh, yeah, DD >knew what Quirrel was up to - he set up the entire trap for LV. Bart: OK, that I agree he did; I've noted that he even set up the traps in such a way that the specific group of friends Harry got were able to break them. lizzyben: >Or why he wanted them to >get the Hallows at all. Bart: That's an odd one. lizzyben: >Or why he didn't just *give* Hermione the >Horcrux book before he died. Or why he didn't just *give* Harry the >Sword of Gryffindor before he died instead of that convoluted plan. Bart: That's clearly because he didn't expect to die that night; this was the backup plan in case death came unexpectedly. Bart From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 21:21:38 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:21:38 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177390 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > Sometimes I like to fantasies I'm JKR's editor and > what I'd do to change her text. ... > > The scene is right after Harry demonstrates the > enormous power of the Elder wand by fixing the > supposedly unfixable Phoenix feather wand and Harry > says he doesn't want to keep the Elder Wand and > intends to return it to Dumbledore's tomb: > > Hermione- > > "I don't think that will work Harry." > > Dumbledore's Portrait- > > "Unfortunately Hermione is right Harry. Even if you > don't use it you are still the master of the Elder > Wand and ever will be, and now everybody knows all > about it. ..." > bboyminn: A fair thought, but ask yourself this, how does 'everyone' know about it? The only people in the room are Harry, Ron, and Hermione plus the portraits. So who is to say the version they give the Wizard World is the version they decide on in the Head's office? Do you really see this announcement in the paper the next day - "Harry Potter is the Master of the Elder Wand which he was conveniently place in Dumbledore's tomb which experience has shown is relatively easy to rob. Of course, no one would dare kill the hero Harry and steal the Wand, and thereby become the Wand's new master and an near-invincible all-powerful wizard capable of dominating and ruling the wizard world." Seem a little too much like handing the plan to ambitious bad guys. More likely, it went like this - "Harry Potter, the know Master of the Elder Wand, has decided for the sake of the peace and stability of the Wizard World that the Wand should be destroyed. Consequently, the Wand was snapped in several places then burned to ashes and it's ashes scattered in the lake at Hogwart's School." So, my point is, what happens in the Head's office is not public knowledge. Only three people actually know what happened to the Wand after the fact, and I don't think they are telling. > Eggplant: > > In the Epilog the first thing I'd do is erase the > last 3 words, "all is well" it is a little too much > like "and they lived happily ever after" ... I'd say > that as Harry walked along Platform 9 3/4 he did so > with a slight limp, and then when he waves his > departing son goodbye he does so "with his good hand". > ... > bboyminn: I can actually see the appeal of this. In a sense, we could reasonably speculate that it is somewhat unrealistic for Harry to have escaped without a scratch on him. And, it does make the moment very touching. However, we would then have to add those injuries to the earlier parts of the story to document them. Harry couldn't just suddenly appear with injuries unless you are going for a 'Moody thing' were these are injuries Harry has accumulated in his work as an Auror. In a sense, we see the price of a life spent as a noble hero. > Eggplant" > > And by the way, in book 6 when Slughorn says the > fumes from the Love Potion rise in a characteristic > spiral pattern I'd change it to "a characteristic > helical pattern. > bboyminn: I think one of the first rules of writing is 'don't use a fancy word when a simple word will do'. Don't use 'circumambulate' when what you really mean is 'walk around'. Certainly do use your vocabulary if you have it, but it should clarify not obscure. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Tue Sep 25 21:33:35 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:33:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177391 "Dana" wrote: > as long as Voldemort was alive, > Harry could go back. Yes, Harry was alive because Voldemort was still alive, he was only injured when he tried to kill Harry in the forest because he still had the snake. > Voldemort did not drop dead when > Neville killed Nagini either But he would have if then he was hit with another backfiring AK curse, and soon after that he was. Dumbledore certainly expected Harry to die and said as much to Snape. I can think of absolutely no reason Dumbledore would lie about that, not to Snape, not when he's angry at Dumbledore for leading Lilly Potter's son to slaughter like a pig. But in Dumbledore's defense he wasn't asking Harry to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. Dumbledore could be very cold blooded when he needed to be, and in war you need to be. Eggplant From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 21:40:18 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:40:18 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177392 Dana wrote: > > as long as Voldemort was alive, Harry could go back. Voldemort did not drop dead when Neville killed Nagini either. He would surely not have died if the event, of Harry's supposed death, had taken place after Nagini was taken care off. He still had the soul bit residing in his body and without actively killing that part of his soul, he would not just have dropped death because Harry did > [not]. > Carol responds: I agree so far. Dumbledore explains in HBP that while destroying the Horcruxes is essential to make Voldemort mortal, their destruction will not kill him in and of itself: "It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort even without his Horcruxes" (the uncommon power in Harry's case being love, which evidently compensates for his lack of skill, HBP Am. ed. 509). Dana: > To me, it seems that the only reason Voldemort was down on his knees, after what happened to Harry, was because of the mind link Harry shared with LV (that was probably broken forcefully) and not because the soul bit died. The crying creature at Kings Cross was the soul bit attached to Harry because if it had been LV conscious soul then he would surely have experienced the events at the same time Harry did but Voldemort had no clue Harry was not really death or what would become of him if he died. It would surely had increased his fear of death by a tenfold (at least) but as we see in the final scene, he surely wasn't worried about it more then he ever was before, not even when Harry told him no horcruxes where left. > Carol responds: Here I disagree. Dead!DD tells Harry quite plainly that the soul bit in his scar has been utterly destroyed, just like the soul bits in the diary, ring, locket, cup, and tiara/diadem Horcruxes, and that the thing under the bench is something else: ""'So the part of his soul that was in me . . . has it gone?' "'Oh, yes!' said Dumbledore. 'Yes, he destroyed it. Your soul is whole, and completely your own, Harry.' "'But then . . .' Harry glanced over his shoulder to where the small, maimed creature trembled under the chair. 'What is that, Professor?' "'Something that is beyond either of our help,' said Dumbledore" (DH Am. ed. 708). Soul bits don't go to some equivalent of King's Cross when they are released from the Horcrux that holds them. According to Hermione, our resident expert on the subject, "a Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being. . . . [W]hatever happens to your body, your soul will survive, untouched. But it's the other way around with a Horcrux. The fragment inside it depends on its container, its enchanted body. It can't exist without it" (104). So the soul in Voldemort's body, mangled and fragmented as it is, can't be destroyed even when his body dies. It will exist in some form. The soul bits, in contrast, are utterly destroyed when their containers are destroyed. Admittedly, Harry's scar is not destroyed, but the soul bit is gone from it (Harry's soul is completely his own, and he no longer has the link to Voldemort's mind). It does not appear that the soul bit flitted outside its container and could not return. Instead, it seems to have been destroyed by the Dark magic of the AK just as the diary, ring, cup, and locket were destroyed by Basilisk venom and the diadem by Fiendfyre. That the thing under the bench is a representation of Voldie's soul's future existence is clear from Harry's words, "I've seen what you'll be otherwise [if you don't show remorse]" (741). The question of whether Voldie's fragmented soul (not the destroyed soul bit) is actually present in Harry's out of body experience is unclear. DD says that it's happening in Harry's mind but is no less real for that (723). I can think of two possibilities, first, that Voldie's future state is part of Harry's vision, real and true (within the context of the book) but still a vision; second, that Voldie is experiencing the same vision but is so divorced from his own soul that he doesn't understand what he experienced. The flayed baby does not participate in the conversation; it seems to be aware only of its own suffering and helplessness. If Voldie did pass briefly into that state in his own out of body experience, he clearly didn't comprehend that it was his own future existence, escapable only by feeling and expressing remorse. Perhaps he was only unconscious and experienced nothing but blackness, or blackness and pain; nonetheless, it's clear from the context (and the resemblance to Fetal!mort in GoF) that the thing under the bench is not the destroyed soul bit but the tattered remains of Voldie's own soul, which perhaps would have been left under the bench had Harry chosen to "go on," but which returned briefly to Voldie's body (assuming that it had indeed left) when both of them regained consciousness. As to the question of what would have happened if Nagini had been destroyed before this confrontation, I agree with you that it would have made no difference. Voldemort would not have been killed because his AK killed the soul bit rather than rebounding. (The death of the last Horcrux might well have knocked him unconscious, however.) The shared drop of blood would still have kept Harry from dying. Harry (or Snape?) would then have had to find a way to kill the now-mortal Voldemort using "skill and power." Exactly what DD expected to happen then is unclear, since he expected Snape to have the wand. Maybe he expected Snape to step in and kill LV. Clearly, "poor Severus" wasn't supposed to die, but "that bit" didn't work out (721). Luckily for Harry, the flaw in Dumbledore's plan (Draco disarming DD before Snape killed him), combined with the consultation with DD in King's Cross, gave Harry the "skill and power" he needed, a psychological understanding of LV and the mastery of the Elder Wand. Or that's how I see it. Carol, admitting that we don't know what LV experienced while he was unconscious, but sure that the flayed child is not the soul bit and that Nagini's continued existence made no difference to DD's plan From AllieS426 at aol.com Tue Sep 25 21:43:50 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:43:50 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <013001c7ff97$2447d360$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177393 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Amy Klein > > wrote: > > > >> I must add that the Funeral incident only explains one time the nose > >> was broken. Snuffles quote mentions that the nose looked like it was > >> broken twice. Can someone find any cannon that could explain the > >> second break? > > > > zanooda: > There isn't cannon for the 2nd break, but since Dumbledore did well with a > broom, we might be able to assume Quidditch. Again, maybe he liked looking > roughed up, as if to say that he had lead a good life. Allie: Maybe it was not broken twice, but rather broken in two places. A powerful punch, possibly with magic behind it unintentionally, could do that. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Tue Sep 25 21:55:32 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:55:32 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9D6CDBD1-D0D0-4833-A627-48EBFE5EDF42@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177394 On 2007, Sep 25, , at 13:21, Steve wrote: > bboyminn: > > I think one of the first rules of writing is 'don't > use a fancy word when a simple word will do'. Don't > use 'circumambulate' when what you really mean is > 'walk around'. Certainly do use your vocabulary if > you have it, but it should clarify not obscure. > > Just a few thoughts. > > Steve/bboyminn Which leads into my question/observation: In another newsgroup that I belong to, the book under discussion was HP and the Deathly Hallows. JKR's writing was described as "Grade B". I had never understood why book people looked down on her writing so much, when it is obviously good enough not only to spark world-wide interest, but also thousands of messages discussing topics related to the world she invented. Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed before, even though I have read all of the books multiple times and listened to them on audio in the American, British, and German versions. Evidently people who write "beautifully" are expected to use more descriptive words for the word "said" and not use the "said + adverb" construct unless they can't avoid it. Now that I understand at least a bit what they are talking about, it does seem that she overuses it. But, to me, the ideas, the plot development, the complexity, and the characters all overshadow the problem with overuse of adverbs. As I said on that forum, I wish I could write that "badly". I wonder if her editors should have suggested changes there. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 22:09:47 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:09:47 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: <32233891.1190752961023.JavaMail.root@mswamui-bichon.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177395 lizzyben wrote: > > Or why he didn't just *give* Hermione the Horcrux book before he died. Or why he didn't just *give* Harry the Sword of Gryffindor before he died instead of that convoluted plan. > > Bart: > That's clearly because he didn't expect to die that night; this was the backup plan in case death came unexpectedly. Carol responds: Right. Dumbledore expected to retrieve the real locket Horcrux, use the Sword of Gryffindor to destroy it, and then give the sword to Harry. (At that point, he could also have given Harry the book(s) on Horcruxes, either for his own use or to give to Hermione, though admittedly there's no indication that he intended to do so.) But since DD knew that Draco was trying to kill him and that he was dying from the ring Horcrux and could die from either cause (or require Snape to kill him for either reason) at any time and also knew that retrieving the Horcrux would be very dangerous, more so to him than to Harry, he needed a back-up plan (willing Harry the sword) in case he died before his plans came to fruition. He could not, however, include the books on Horcruxes in the will as he knew that Scrimgeour would read it and he didn't want to give the plan away. Carol, who would have been perfectly happy without the Harry!Horcrux motif, which necessitated the Elder Wand subplot and all its complications, including Snape's death :-( From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 22:25:26 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:25:26 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177396 There???s been a lot of discussion about Draco, and I???d like to know what would make anyone identify with him or like him. There are a number of people who seem to identify with both Snape and Draco, and this I really don???t get, other than the desire to defend the guys who seem mean but might not be. I sort of get why some people respond to young Severus ??" poor, tough family life, weird clothes, possibly unpopular, bullied to some extent??? I mean, I still think you could better find a connection in these areas with aspects of Harry, Ron, Neville, without the whole Death Eater thing. But I don???t get where the connection to Draco comes from. Draco, in many ways is the opposite of Snape ??" rich, with an influential family (who does love him). And there are so many reasons to dislike him. Rich, arrogant, spoiled ??" buys his way onto the Quidditch team. He mocks people for being poorer than him, for having less pure blood, for their physical attributes, and is cruel about it. He has little respect for life ??" either of other species, or human. Not only does he try to get Buckbeak killed, he cheers on the Basilisk. Plus there???s everything in HBP ??" he may in the end not want to kill in person, but he certainly doesn???t seem to mind (at first) his assignment to kill a man who has never harmed him, or that in trying to do so he nearly kills two other innocents. His parents??? ???boss???, and to a lesser extent, his parents, were genocidal, pureblooded manics. Draco not only admired this, but strove to join them. He relished in the pain that was visited on many of his classmates. Look, I know the Nazi/Hitler analogy is played out, but I think many people feel that this is what JKR was going for, and so it???s not my personal analogy, but hers, when I say??? how do the people who identify with Draco see themselves? I mean, does anybody say, ???Yeah, I was rich and spoiled. I was mean to poor people. I was racist and prejudiced and wanted people to be killed. My dad worked for Hitler, and I couldn???t wait to work for him too.??? There???s been a lot of discussion on who was the instigator, who was the bully, and I don???t want to get into that. I have my own opinion, but really??? I think Harry would have left Draco alone if Draco had left Harry alone. I think Harry for the most part is fighting for his honor, for his friends, for ideals that are right, and Draco is fighting to be cruel, to bring pain, for his own amusement. And while I think arguments can be made for Draco being bullied, I think they are weaker than Draco being a bully??? and really, it seems more like a nasty rivalry. I don???t think it???s the main issue, so much as who these boys are, what they stand for, how they treat others that aren???t each other. But without a subversive reading that makes down up, light dark, good bad, and chocolate ice cream taste like Brussels sprouts??? how does one identify with Draco without feeling bad about the person that they are? At his best, he???s a misguided little spoiled twit who likes to have fun at the expense of others. At his worst, he???s a genocidal monster in the making. I don???t think a funny comeback or two makes up for that. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Sep 25 22:46:02 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:46:02 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177397 > zanooda replied: > > Yes, it's a very confusing part. Why did Harry need to believe that > he is sacrificing himself? Why wasn't he allowed to know that he may > survive? Pippin: Dumbledore could only guess that Harry might survive, the situation between Harry and Voldemort being utterly without precedent. -- "His body keeps her sacrifice alive, and while that enchantment survives, so do you and so does Voldemort's one last hope for himself." Dumbledore smiled at Harry, and Harry stared at him. "And you knew this? You knew--all along?" "I guessed." --DH ch 35 IMO, Dumbledore did not want to repeat his mistake with Snape and let Harry risk himself for the sake of a false hope. Also, it seems he guessed that by choosing death Harry would be able to invoke protection on the people he died for, as Lily did. That is the best explanation I have for why Dumbledore was so satisfied that Harry had not defended himself. "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." Happiness seemed to radiate from Dumbledore like light, like fire: Harry had never seen the man so utterly, so palpably content. --DH ch 35 We understand later what Harry was able to accomplish: "I was ready to die to stop you from hurting these people--" "But you did not!" "--I meant to, and that's what did it. I've done what my mother did. They're protected from you. Havne't you noticed how none of the spells you put on them are binding? You can't torture them. You can't touch them." --DH ch 36 This is not a mere bluff as Neville's escape from the body bind curse and the Sorting Hat's survival shows. What Harry did worked, so even if he had not survived, the WW would have gained protection from Voldemort. It shows, further, that blood is not the operative factor in the protection, since Neville and Harry do not share blood. Dumbledore explains in detail why he sent Harry after the Hallows while withholding so much information about them. He wanted Harry to have them so that Harry would know there was nothing to fear in death, but he was afraid that if he made it too easy, Harry would misuse the Hallows as Dumbledore had done. He begs Harry's forgiveness for not trusting him more. As it unfolds, it can really only have been the Stone that Dumbledore wanted Harry to use. Harry already had the cloak. Snape was supposed to have had the wand, and, presumably to know what it was, because otherwise Dumbledore could not have been sure that Snape would take it. "If you planned your death with Snape, you meant him to end up with the Elder Wand, didn't you?" -DH ch 35 Harry explains later that the wand would have lost its powers if Dumbledore had died as he had planned. "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 never had been won from him!" -DH ch 36 It's not clear what Dumbledore expected Snape to do with the (secretly) disempowered wand but it might have kept Voldemort from attacking him, since Voldemort knew he'd come so close to being beaten by that wand at the MoM. It's interesting that Snape raises a wand in the Shrieking Shack but apparently decides not to fight. But he couldn't have won against horcrux-protected Voldemort and the only weapon he could have used against Nagini is fiendfyre. In such close quarters that would only have meant an even more horrible death. Dumbledore's "Poor Severus" remark suggests he didn't intend for Snape to die as he did. That this contradicts "Don't pity the dead" suggests two intriguing possibilities: one, that Snape isn't dead (I wish!) or more likely, IMO, at this point Harry has worked out for himself that no one who has not abused their soul as thoroughly as Voldemort did has anything to fear from death. Pippin From prep0strus at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 22:56:00 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:56:00 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177398 I???ve been thinking about the Hallows, and how strange they are, both as items to include as part of a children???s fable, and as real objects. I really wonder about what JKR???s thought process was in including them, so I???d welcome any thoughts people might have on the matter. Fairy tales often encourage people to make the right choice by showing what happens when you make the wrong one. And there???s usually a consistency to how the rules work ??" especially in the ???three wishes??? variety. But in the story of the Deathly Hallows, that seems to go out the window. The resurrection stone??? doesn???t work. At least, it doesn???t work the way the requester intended. The wish granter has twisted the wish, made the gift feebler, so that it can never truly deliver. This is nothing new for a wish fable ??" often people don???t get what they expect. Except the other two hallows DO work. The wand works just fine ??" but the greed of others makes it something not desirable. It does its job TOO well, inspiring envy and brings destruction upon its owner. This too is not new to a fable type story, but again, it doesn???t match with the others. Also, it is usually because of the person who has the item using it improperly that makes this happen. That is shown in the story with the seeking out a fight and then bragging about it ??" drawing attention. However, this flaw does not appear in regards to the stone, where his desire may be seen as improper by jkr, but he does nothing wrong, really ??" it simply doesn???t work. Finally, we have the cloak, which works perfectly, exactly as the wisher desired it to??? even though that doesn???t make much sense. So he spent his life hidden under a cloak, and some how managed to marry and have kids? The wisher does not behave inappropriately, so the wish doesn???t turn on him. And the wish granter does not deceive him like he did the one who wished for the stone. So the moral has to be that the cloak was the correct wish ??" do not wish for power, do not wish to bring loved ones back from the dead, but DO wish to avoid death. It???s very strange, and not balanced. In addition, the idea of invisibility, as opposed to our other two potential gifts ??" power, and resurrection, being the most admirable??? I find that odd. People often ask what superpower one would want if given the choice ??" flight, invisibility, etc??? and I always feel that invisibility is the one with the weird taint on it. It???s not that good things can???t be accomplished with it ??" we see Harry use it well. But the things that jump immediately to mind seem to be burglary and peeping toms. To be invisible is to be doing something you don???t want others to see. To do something you???re ashamed of, or afraid of, or are escaping responsibility for. Now, I don???t think that???s how it is in the real story, where Harry uses his cloak to hide from bad guys and accomplish important tasks he needs to hide from grown ups??? but in a fable, it seems like a very strange moral. It is saying the wish that is the most admirable is the one that allows you to do things that you might be ashamed of. And, in the way the brother uses it, it is saying you must stay hidden your entire life. And it goes against the way JKR wrote the whole story in other ways ??" bravery, facing fears, even death, seem to be what she values highest in this world. Running and hiding don???t jive with this. Harry also gets to be the big hero, noticed by all, a lot of the time ??" on the Quidditch field, at the end of the first two books at least, and JKR does not suggest that this is bad. Harry (to quote ???Wizard People, Dear Reader???) is a glorious god! How does this match with the best wish you can make is to hide? Finally, the way the story transfers to real life??? the resurrection stone is the same in that it does not have the power it is supposed to, and yet, Harry is able to use it for comfort, not pain. The wand is clearly also the same ??" extremely powerful ??" but powerful not just for duels. Also for fixing wands and presumably anything else. Without the hubris present in a fable character, does it truly need to be removed from society? Can???t it do good? And, if it can???t, shouldn???t it actually be destroyed, not just put somewhere so that harry, as an auror, is always at risk of losing control over it? Finally, the cloak??? which works very well as an invisibility cloak, but nowhere is it suggested that one could actually avoid death when wearing it. So it, unlike the others, is actually LESS in real life ??" though still the ???right??? object. Still the most moral, most correct wish. Even though it can only be used for skulking and spying, hiding and avoiding. I just don???t understand the moral I am supposed to learn from the story of the three brothers, or the story of the hallows in the ???real??? world of the books. ~Adam (Prep0strus) From va32h at comcast.net Tue Sep 25 23:25:30 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:25:30 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177399 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > I just don' understand the moral I am supposed to learn from the > story of the three brothers, or the story of the hallows in the > world of the books. [everything else snipped] va32h: I would say the moral is - don't make a deal with the devil (or Death, as he is called in the Three Brothers tale). It's the age-old adage, "be careful what you wish for". Like the Twilight Zone episode where the guy is the last person on earth and he gets to live in the library but he breaks his glassses? Or one of Aesop's fables...is it the one with the crow and the grapes? I forget. Anyway, it's an old, old theme. As it's used here, I'd say that the idea is that you really can't cheat Death. Death will always come for you, no matter how cleverly you think you've avoided him and death will always win in the end. You can act recklessly - as if you are above death (the brother with the wand), or you can wallow in mourning for someone who's already gone (the brother with the stone) or you can accept that Death will be out there somewhere, sometime and live your own life to the fullest, until you have to meet him. Voldemort is very much like the first brother - he made his Horcruxes and thought he was above Death, and acted foolishly and arrogantly and in the end that killed him. Snape is the second brother - he is hopelessly lost to the past, devoting his entire life to someone who is dead and as a result not really living himself. Harry is the third brother - even at age 11, Harry freely acknowledged that death was inevitable at some point, even likely to strike him soon, and yet not the worst thing that could happen to him. Harry has always known and accepted his own eventual death...he has risked his life willingly pretty much every year since he arrived at Hogwarts. Perhaps it is this courage that "shields" him from Death's clutches (a la the Cloak) even though he is not at all invisible in his actions. There's a long tradition of mystical people granting mortals wishes with loopholes...I think this just fits into that with the tweaking that is necessary to make it all about DEATH, and DYING, and DEATH DEATH DEATH, were ALL going to DIE - which was JKR's apparent obsession. She's sort of second brother-esque really, IMO. It's one thing to accept that Death is inevitable, it's another to create a 7 book series as an homage to the fact that we're all going to DIE DIE DIE - I just felt hammered over the head by that particular motif. va32h From cel.shaded at yahoo.com Tue Sep 25 23:35:18 2007 From: cel.shaded at yahoo.com (cel.shaded) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 23:35:18 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177400 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > Look, I know the Nazi/Hitler analogy is played out, but I think many > people feel that this is what JKR was going for, and so it???s not my > personal analogy, but hers, when I say??? how do the people who identify > with Draco see themselves? > > I mean, does anybody say, ???Yeah, I was rich and spoiled. I was mean > to poor people. I was racist and prejudiced and wanted people to be > killed. My dad worked for Hitler, and I couldn???t wait to work for him > too.??? > ~Adam(Prep0strus) I felt compelled to comment on this, because it just so happens I was trying to figure out how to redeem Draco quite recently. I mean, he has been redeemed, but I have never quite gotten around to explaining why I am so cursed fond of the character, even though he is admittedly a Dudley with more cleverness, and different forms of power. And why I have gone to such great lengths to mark out all the reasons his name should be cleared in accordance with his acts in DH. I don't think there is much to admire in him, for starters, and admiration is key to sort of relating to a character, because there must be some good in them that you aspire to. But (if you could call it admiration!) I suppose there is something good to say that Draco has perseverance. He never wins, ever. In the long run, Draco is resigned to the has-beens pile, those who won in the short term but were ultimately defeated by the Main-Character-Upon-Whom-All-Blessings-Are-Heaped. But does he go home and cry to his mummy about Harry? No, he jumps right back up after a few days (after crying to his mummy?). If nothing else, we can all silently applaud he can doggedly pursue his own agenda, even when he ought to have quit long ago. And he has not been depicted as a thoroughly hatable character. Low and unworthy of adoration and petty and arrogant and so on and so forth, but he has never been Evil. What he did in HBP was admittedly rather Evil, but it was tempered by the fact he didn't really want it, he just didn't want to get caught with what would happen if he didn't do it; his motivation for LV's cause seems to be mostly fear for himself. And I suppose, in his very, very, very tiny way, he rebels. Sort of. Just enough to shout out to us that he IS Redeemable!Draco, and we should not condemn him yet. He's still vaguely familiar, sort of an unpleasant person you've never gotten to know. He could be evil, or he might be evil and something else, too. & also, during the first four books (perhaps the fifth, too) he was so supremely pettily Evil and one-sided in doing so my Reading Radar picked up an anomaly. I mean, there were tiny flashes of vulnerability, but throughout he was generally the Draco Harry refused to befriend on the train. And he is not an important enough villain to be one-sided, or lesser-enough that he can be relegated to a handful of adjectives. Draco is much more important than Ernie, but I find Ernie a bit more two-sided than Draco, with his pomposity, changing alliances . . . So something's up. The way Draco is positioned in the novel just makes it feel it would be a desecration if JKR did nothing more than make him a tiny villian who can't even win. (Besides, he is a failure at a villian! He can't get one definitive win that can withstand time.) He is not Harry's enemy, and hasn't really been set up like that throughout the series. He's more like Harry's schoolboy rival. You can feel sympathetic to Draco, I think, because you can't really be angry at him. Or hate him, the way you can Voldemort or Snape if you were all for Snape the Traitor after HBP. And since he really never wins enough to be the top dog, and never is evil enough to be respected, or nice enough to be liked, he just kind of flows to the middling ground of being someone to sympathize and sort of patronizingly comfort. ?Cel, who hopes she did not ramble too much to be entirely useless. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 00:21:25 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:21:25 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" wrote: > > There???s been a lot of discussion about Draco, and I???d like to know > what would make anyone identify with him or like him. Speaking only for myself, it made an impression on me when, in the first book, Draco was rejected by Harry. On one hand, it's perfectly clear why Harry does so, and I was happy that he stood by his new friend, Ron, and refused to let another person insult him. On the other, it was obvious that Draco was stung by Harry's reply. So, when I looked at that exchange on rereading the books, it struck me that Draco didn't instantly dislike Harry. It was a stupid, arrogant way of offering friendship. But it was an offer. And I liked him for it. In CoS, we get a glimpse of Draco and his father, and see that Draco isn't actually spoiled. He doesn't get everything he wants from his parents (in contrast to Dudley, who does), and he had to live up to some high standards--his father expects him to outclass every other student in school. (From this moment, a million fanfics in which Draco is systemically tortured by Lucius were inspired). Another reason to like him. Third, he's pretty funny. I don't get so much into his Potter Stinks badges or the Weasley Is Our King song, but Draco's usually good for a laugh whenever he shows up. Fourth, in GoF, his exchange with the Trio is both funny and ambiguous. Is he making fun of Hermione or trying to warn her? (From this moment, a million Draco/Hermione fanfics were inspired.) Finally, while Draco never seemed to care much about other people up until HBP, there was definitely something going on in that book with him. He did a lot of growing up, and went from being a gloater to suffering fear and remorse about the idea of having to kill someone he had been raised to think of as the enemy. A character who changes is usually more interesting than a character who doesn't. So, I don't identify with Draco's wealth, looks, clothes, or political views. I don't admire any of them (except maybe the clothes). But I empathize with his struggle to find his own way that incorporates his parents' worldview with his own thoughts and feelings. And I enjoy his humor. Montavilla47 From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 00:22:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:22:23 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: <9D6CDBD1-D0D0-4833-A627-48EBFE5EDF42@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177402 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > In another newsgroup that I belong to, the book under discussion was HP and the Deathly Hallows. JKR's writing was described as "Grade B". I had never understood why book people looked down on her writing so much, when it is obviously good enough not only to spark world-wide interest, but also thousands of messages discussing topics related to the world she invented. > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed before, even though I have read all of the books multiple times Evidently people who write "beautifully" are expected to use more descriptive words for the word "said" and not use the "said + adverb" construct unless they can't avoid it. Now that I understand at least a bit what they are talking about, it does seem that she overuses it. But, to me, the ideas, the plot development, the complexity, and the characters all overshadow the problem with overuse of adverbs. > > As I said on that forum, I wish I could write that "badly". > > I wonder if her editors should have suggested changes there. Carol responds: As a professional copyeditor, I'm generally not bothered by the use of adverbs, which are a perfectly legitimate part of speech. How is "Snape sounded furious" any better than "Snape said furiously" (both of which JKR uses in "The Prince's Tale")? Is there a synonym for "said furiously" that would convey the meaning any more clearly? IMO, "said" is a perfectly good word, easily varied with a few common synonyms (asked, answered, shouted, whispered) and occasionally, with a precise synonym denoting the tone of voice or facial expression (snarled, sneered, wailed, etc.), but synonyms, like any stylistic device, can be overdone. There's nothing wrong with occasionally augmenting "said" with an adverb. ("Silkily" is a favorite of JKR's though I'd prefer her restricting its use to Snape, for whom that tone of voice is a characteristic mannerism, rather than also using it for Umbridge and Voldemort, which dilutes the effect, IMO. Besides, "said Snape silkily" is nicely alliterative and Slytherinishly sibilant, and I can't think of a one-word verb that conveys the same meaning effectively.) JKR also does a good job of mixing action and description with dialogue as a way of indicating who is speaking without directly attributing it using "said" or a synonym for "said." What I do find distracting in JKR's is a tendency to write unattributed dialogue, so that I'm sometimes unsure who is speaking. (Was it Sirius or James who dubbed Severus "Snivellus" in "The Prince's Tale"? I think it was Sirius, but I can't be sure. Who cast the Petrificus Totalus that saved Harry from Fenrir Greyback in HBP? I thought it would turn out to be Snape, shooting around the corner as he fled with Draco, but we're never told who cast it.) Whether that's a flaw in the writing or deliberate misdirection, I'm not sure, but misdirection should be cleared away later. There's no reason to keep the speaker mysterious in those two instances (and others). Unattributed dialogue is fine when only two people are involved in a conversation and the reader can follow the sequence based on content and other clues, but if three or more people are present, the speaker should be identified in some way unless there's a good reason for keeping the identity mysterious. Another habit of JKR's that I find annoying both as a reader and as a copyeditor is a tendency to misplace modifiers, resulting in awkward and sometimes unclear sentences. "A pretty girl in a blue dress that he didn't know" ("Yule Ball" chapter of GoF, quoted from memory) suggests that Harry was unacquainted with the blue dress but actually refers to Harry's (mistaken) impression that he doesn't know the girl.) Another one is "Wandless, helpless, Pettigrew's pupils dilated in terror" (DH Am. ed. 470). No doubt Pettigrew's pupils were wandless and perhaps they were helpless, but the adjectives should refer to Pettigrew himself, not his pupils. (I know there are other examples of the type, "Harry said loudly, who . . . ," but I can't find an example at the moment.) The misplaced or dangling modifiers are infrequent, but when I'm *not* looking for them, they jump out at me, and I wonder why the copyeditor didn't correct the sentence in the interest of readability. Carol, who's sure she'll find a perfect example as soon as she hits Send From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 00:41:25 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 00:41:25 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177403 va32h: > Anyway, it's an old, old theme. As it's used here, I'd say that > the idea is that you really can't cheat Death. Death will always > come for you, no matter how cleverly you think you've avoided him > and death will always win in the end. You can act recklessly - as > if you are above death (the brother with the wand), or you can > wallow in mourning for someone who's already gone (the brother > with the stone) or you can accept that Death will be out there > somewhere, sometime and live your own life to the fullest, until > you have to meet him. Jen: There's sort of a riddle to them as well, only one who doesn't seek them can find them; only one who doesn't attempt to use them to defeat death can work them properly or gain any benefit from them. They remind me of the Stone in the Mirror - only one who wants the Stone but not to use can get it out. va32h: > Voldemort is very much like the first brother - he made his > Horcruxes and thought he was above Death, and acted foolishly and > arrogantly and in the end that killed him. Snape is the second > brother - he is hopelessly lost to the past, devoting his entire > life to someone who is dead and as a result not really living > himself. Harry is the third brother - even at age 11, Harry freely > acknowledged that death was inevitable at some point, even likely > to strike him soon, and yet not the worst thing that could happen > to him. Jen: I thought of Grindelwald as the first brother because he obtained the wand by theft and wanted to use it for power and domination over others. Eventually his evil plans were on such a grand scale that he was challenged and lost the wand to Dumbledore. Then Dumbledore was the second brother in my story because he was 'never free,' tempted by the Resurrection Stone to bring back his beloved dead. First he wanted to bring back the dead as a young man to take away his unwanted responsibilities, then as an old man he hoped to see his beloved dead again. Harry, third brother, yes. The reason I wouldn't put Voldemort in is because he's so far removed from death he's actually defied it once. He doesn't even bother learning about the Hallows because they are beneath him, less powerful than the Horcruxes. Learning about a powerful wand is out of his need to find a wand that can work to kill Harry only and not as an attempt to unite the Hallows. va32h: > She's sort of second brother-esque really, IMO. It's one thing to > accept that Death is inevitable, it's another to create a 7 book > series as an homage to the fact that we're all going to DIE DIE > DIE - I just felt hammered over the head by that particular > motif. Jen: This is the part that worked best for me in the series because it was interesting to think about *if* a person had magical ability to seek a way to defeat death or bring back loved ones, what would a person do? She made it seem realistic to me that a person could be shaped by how they used magical power, especially those using it in attempts to defeat either their own death, death of loved ones or bringing back lost ones. I suppose on a personal level it's appealing for me to think of lost loved ones going on to 'the next great adventure' since I have no magical powers to stop death. :) (Not saying the way JKR approached death was appealing for everyone; I realize that's a very personal thing.) Jen From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 01:36:21 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:36:21 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177404 > va32h: > I would say the moral is - don't make a deal with the devil (or > Death, as he is called in the Three Brothers tale). > > Anyway, it's an old, old theme. As it's used here, I'd say that the > idea is that you really can't cheat Death. Death will always come > for you, no matter how cleverly you think you've avoided him and > death will always win in the end. You can act recklessly - as if you > are above death (the brother with the wand), or you can wallow in > mourning for someone who's already gone (the brother with the stone) > or you can accept that Death will be out there somewhere, sometime > and live your own life to the fullest, until you have to meet him. > > va32h > Prep0strus: I agree with you about what her moral probably was supposed to be, and even about your analysis of the characters and how they relate to the fable characters... except that third brother. You say, 'live your own life to the fullest, until you have to meet him'. That's nice, but how does an invisibility cloak represent that? Sure, the third brother does lead his own life - has kids, and faces death head high... but what an invisibility cloak represents to me is nothing like that at all. Invisibility represents fear and avoidance. The third brother lives his entire life hiding from death. And as a symbolic device, invisibility appears to be much more about fear, stealth, or shame, rather than courage or acceptance. It feels to me an odd choice to make, other than that Harry already had one at his disposal. But if she were planning this from the beginning, I really don't get it. It also doesn't make the fable itself work that well for me - I don't like the inconsistency of one gift being a trick that doesn't work, one working until you lose it through your own flaws, and one working perfectly. Jen: There's sort of a riddle to them as well, only one who doesn't seek them can find them; only one who doesn't attempt to use them to defeat death can work them properly or gain any benefit from them. They remind me of the Stone in the Mirror - only one who wants the Stone but not to use can get it out. Prep0strus: But the first brother doesn???t try to defeat death. There is no use for the second gift ??" it simply doesn???t work properly. And the third brother DOES try to defeat death with it ??" and he does. Cel: He never wins, ever. In the long run, Draco is resigned to the has-beens pile, those who won in the short term but were ultimately defeated by the Main-Character-Upon-Whom-All-Blessings-Are-Heaped. But does he go home and cry to his mummy about Harry? No, he jumps right back up after a few days (after crying to his mummy?). If nothing else, we can all silently applaud he can doggedly pursue his own agenda, even when he ought to have quit long ago. Prep0strus: Well, I don't know if he loses in his own head as much as we the reader think of him as losing. I guess perseverance can be considered a positive trait... but when it's perseverance in pursuit of unpleasant and wrong goals, it kind of makes it a wash for me. Cel: And he has not been depicted as a thoroughly hatable character. Low and unworthy of adoration and petty and arrogant and so on and so forth, but he has never been Evil. What he did in HBP was admittedly rather Evil, but it was tempered by the fact he didn't really want it, he just didn't want to get caught with what would happen if he didn't do it; his motivation for LV's cause seems to be mostly fear for himself. And I suppose, in his very, very, very tiny way, he rebels. Sort of. Just enough to shout out to us that he IS Redeemable!Draco, and we should not condemn him yet. Prep0strus: I agree. I thought, especially after HBP, we would see a true redemption. I don't, however, feel we've gotten that in DH. It's not really my main point - it's not whether or not Draco is truly evil or able to be redeemed, but why anyone would like him or identify with him. Still, I guess I will say here that the scene where he doesn't want to leave Goyle didn't do that much for me. Just because someone is bad, doesn't make every single thing they do bad. Some characters are drawn as completely one dimensionally evil. But other characters could be pretty much evil, and yet still have things they care about. Caring for another person does not instantly make you redeemed or wonderful. He had friends, and he didn't want them to die. The question is whether he would have attempted to save Harry or Ron or Hermione if the situation were reversed. Whatever reluctance Harry might see in Draco there - and it easily could have been because he wanted to follow voldemorte's instructions, instead of going all commando like Crabbe - Draco and Goyle were still supporting Crabbe, who was trying to KILL Harry. This was not a game. The good guys could have died, and I think we see enough to guess that Draco might have been upset by it, but Crabbe certainly wouldn't be, and I don't think goyle would be either. And I don't think any of them would make even a small effort to help them. Harry risks his neck for the people who were trying to destroy him, and that's what makes him the 'hero' - like Disney's Beast or Simba. Draco isn't the 'villain' because he doesn't turn around and stab him after being rescued. But simply not wanting a friend to die does not make him suddenly wonderful. Just as Ron not mourning the loss of his would be murderer or not wanting to rescue his would be murderer's accomplices makes him evil. He's just not 'the hero'. Wow. Long tangent. Sorry. Anyway, I agree that Draco was redeemable, but I think JKR didn't really redeem him - she grabbed him back from the cliff of evil, without really making him good. And if Voldy had won the battle of Hogwarts, he may have wound up back on his evil path. Cel: You can feel sympathetic to Draco, I think, because you can't really be angry at him. Or hate him, the way you can Voldemort or Snape if you were all for Snape the Traitor after HBP. And since he really never wins enough to be the top dog, and never is evil enough to be respected, or nice enough to be liked, he just kind of flows to the middling ground of being someone to sympathize and sort of patronizingly comfort. Prep0strus: Here, I disagree. I manage to find more hate for him and other characters more than I do for Voldemorte, because voldemorte is... he's over the top. He's supreme evil. Yes, he's horrible, in every way. But he's a monster, and you don't really expect humanity out of him (actually, i don't entirely believe that, because he was a person, and i think it makes him a more interesting character than some villains, but picture Sauron from Lord of the Rings or Something). But with Draco, it's a little more personal. He's the bully that preys on weakness. He's the rich kid that gets whatever he wants. He's a racist. He doesn't respect life. And he's striving to be worse than he is. I don't want to comfort him. I don't want to kill him either, exactly - just smack some sense into him. He's more sympathetic towards the end because he's beaten down. but he's never earned anything in his life, and doesn't really earn the right to a good and free life at the end. Despite doing everything wrong, things turn out ok for him. The other characters have truly earned their peace. But Draco did everything he could to ruin it for everyone else, but he wound up having everything be ok - marriage, kid - both his parents survive, putting him ahead of just about everyone else. I don't think he's necessarily the consummate loser. And I certainly have the ability to be angry at him when he mocks and taunts much better people than himself, when he looks for the death of good creatures and people, when he behaves as the rotten, spoiled, bigot that he is. Montavilla47: In CoS, we get a glimpse of Draco and his father, and see that Draco isn't actually spoiled. He doesn't get everything he wants from his parents (in contrast to Dudley, who does), and he had to live up to some high standards--his father expects him to outclass every other student in school. (From this moment, a million fanfics in which Draco is systemically tortured by Lucius were inspired). A character who changes is usually more interesting than a character who doesn't. Prep0strus: Well, he may not be Dudley, but getting those brooms to be on the team, or getting Buckbeak executed shows how his father his willing to use his influence. I don't personally think Draco changed very much. I thought he was going to, after reading HBP, but DH was immensely disappointing in that regard. Draco gets out a good one liner now and then, but so do many characters - the twins, Ron, and many others. And they're not usually making fun of someone's teeth or their hand me down clothes or because they might be killed by a genocidal sociopath. I think Draco is an interesting character, and could have been more so if JKR had gone a different direction in DH. But it doesn't make me like him, and certainly doesn't make me identify with him. From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 01:45:59 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 01:45:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177405 Pippin: That is the best explanation I have for why Dumbledore was so > satisfied that Harry had not defended himself. > > "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." > Happiness seemed to radiate from Dumbledore like light, like > fire: Harry had never seen the man so utterly, so palpably > content. --DH ch 35 lizzyben: LOL, Dumbledore is so creepy! I think he's just happy that Harry followed The Plan to the letter. >Pippin: > This is not a mere bluff as Neville's escape from the body > bind curse and the Sorting Hat's survival shows. What Harry did > worked, so even if he had not survived, the WW would have > gained protection from Voldemort. It shows, further, that > blood is not the operative factor in the protection, since > Neville and Harry do not share blood. lizzyben: So what is? What is fueling this magical protection? Harry dies, Horcrux evaporates, Harry returns (unlike Lily) and suddenly his supporters can't be hurt by LV's spells. Why? Harry calls it the same protection as his mother - blood protection. Her blood protection saved her child; Harry's blood protection saves all who believe in him. It's a total analogy to Christ. There's no "explanation" at all - it is a miracle. Pippin: > Dumbledore explains in detail why he sent Harry after the Hallows > while withholding so much information about them. He wanted Harry > to have them so that Harry would know there was nothing to fear > in death, but he was afraid that if he made it too easy, Harry > would misuse the Hallows as Dumbledore had done. He begs > Harry's forgiveness for not trusting him more. lizzyben: But that doesn't make any sense at all. He sends Harry out on this "mission" to get the Hallows, even though they're of no strategic use at all, and even though it will distract him from his REAL mission of destroying Horcruxes. DD could just say, hey, here's a red herring for you, but that would be too simple. Instead, he leaves totally obscure hints that Harry has to figure out through sheer randomness (Sign on book = sign on Lovegood's outfit, etc.) before Harry can even figure out what the red herring IS. To, uh, slow him down. Because Harry was completing his mission too quickly & purposefully - no aimless camping at all. But Harry actually HAD two of the Hallows all along. He just needed the wand - couldn't DD just say "I have the Elder Wand"? Why do the other two matter at all? Shouldn't Harry be destroying LV rather than tracking down useless objects that he already has? AARGH. Dumbledore, what a genius. And the ultimate reward of this red herring, useless, mission - DD's approval: "You are the true master of death". OK. So what? What does it mean to be the "Master of Death"? Nothing, apparently. It's a cool title. DD says that the real "Master of Death" accepts that he must die... do you really need 3 magical objects for that? And though the "master of death" accepts that he must die, Harry doesn't actually have to die at all. And the text says that Harry kept the Invisibility Cloak, which gives him immortality. DD says "The true master does not seek to run away from Death, yet Harry should keep the Cloak that allows him to... run away from Death. Message: Accept death, but escape it, and hide from it. Mixed messages much? Pippin: > As it unfolds, it can really only have been the Stone that Dumbledore > wanted Harry to use. Harry already had the cloak. Snape was supposed to have had the wand, and, presumably to know what it was, because otherwise Dumbledore could not have been sure that Snape would take it. lizzyben: Expect Portrait!DD never told Snape about the Elder Wand at all. Why not? Couldn't Snape take the wand from DD's tomb? Since the original plan failed, couldn't he take Draco's wand just as easily? What was the point of Snape having the Wand's allegiance if he didn't know it? So LV would want to kill him? And Harry already had the cloak & Snitch/Stone from the beginning of DH. If DD was already giving Harry the Stone, why did he give Hermione the fairy-tale book that inspired their wild goose chase? Harry would've sacrificed himself with or w/o the Stone - there was no reason that Harry needed to have it at all. The whole subplot is pointless. Pippin: > Dumbledore's "Poor Severus" remark suggests he didn't > intend for Snape to die as he did. That this contradicts > "Don't pity the dead" suggests two intriguing possibilities: > one, that Snape isn't dead (I wish!) or more likely, IMO, > at this point Harry has worked out for himself that no > one who has not abused their soul as thoroughly as > Voldemort did has anything to fear from death. lizzyben: DD says "poor Severus" with pity, even though he also says don't pity the dead. And Harry's not supposed to pity the dead, even though there's a damned soul writhing in agony right behind him. LV *does* have something to fear from death - but Harry shouldn't pity him. Contradictions all over the place. The worst, worst contradiction was Harry's cheering squad that assured him "Dying doesn't hurt a bit, It's quicker & easier than falling asleep!" right after Harry witnessed Snape's painful, long, horrible death. Easy platitudes are contradicted by the harsh reality. And it creates a sense of profound dissonance. You get the feeling that JKR is spouting things that she doesn't truly believe. Adam: > I've been thinking about the Hallows, and how strange they are, both > as items to include as part of a children's fable, and as real > objects. > Fairy tales often encourage people to make the right choice by showing > what happens when you make the wrong one. So the moral has to be that the cloak was the correct wish "do not wish for power, do not wish to bring loved ones back from the dead, but DO wish to avoid death. > It's very strange, and not balanced. lizzyben: I *think* the message was supposed to be that the third brother lived his life w/o thinking about future power (wand) or past losses (stone), and was therefore content to meet death when it came. But an Invisibility Cloak that gives immortality is an odd metaphor for acceptance of death, for sure. Adam: In addition, the idea of > invisibility, as opposed to our other two potential gifts ??" power, and > resurrection, being the most admirable? I find that odd. It is saying the wish that is the > most admirable is the one that allows you to do things that you might > be ashamed of. And, in the way the brother uses it, it is saying you > must stay hidden your entire life. lizzyben: I'm glad you brought this up. Pre-DH, I thought that the ending would involve Harry giving up his Invisibility Cloak & accepting adulthood w/all its burdens and responsibilities. Harry was invisible at the Durselys' - someone who didn't matter, who could be ignored & stuffed out of sight. And that's a Bad Thing. At Hogwarts, Harry has his own identity, but he still wants to be invisible quite often. He's an introvert, so being "invisible" comes easier; being a visible leader is what's difficult for him. And the Cloak *is* a type of escape from responsibility & accountability. So I find an ending where Harry actually *embraces* invisibility quite odd. But I think it really comes back to JKR's odd ideas about ambition. She considers ambition & cunning to be "evil" & Slytherinish; traits that lead to a desire for power & tyranny. The polar opposite of ambition & accomplishment is - invisibility. That's why it's a "good thing" that Harry gives up assertive power (the Wand), and accepts passive invisibility (the Cloak). Of course, JKR later tells us that all the heroes were wildly successful in their careers. But not because they really wanted to be!! It's weird, but if you accept that ambition=evil, the motif works better. It's not that ambition is a "good" Slytherin trait - it's a Slytherin trait because it's "bad" in JKR's world. Adam: > And it goes against the way JKR wrote the whole story in other ways ??" > bravery, facing fears, even death, seem to be what she values highest > in this world. Running and hiding doesn't jive with this. Harry also > gets to be the big hero, noticed by all, a lot of the time ??" on the > Quidditch field, at the end of the first two books at least, and JKR > does not suggest that this is bad. Harry (to quote ???Wizard People, > Dear Reader???) is a glorious god! How does this match with the best > wish you can make is to hide? lizzyben: It keeps coming back to "having your cake & eating it too" or "Angelic goodness & devilish fun". Harry is a super-star, but he doesn't *want* to be. He's fabulously rich, but he was never *ambitious* to become wealthy. He gets the things he wants, because he is so selfless. Harry can be famous & powerful, because he doesn't want fame & power. Harry can escape death, because he accepted death. It's the typical theme - Harry deserves the "devilish fun" (quidditch, Cloaks, fame) because of his angelic goodness. Adam: > I just don't understand the moral I am supposed to learn from the > story of the three brothers, or the story of the hallows in the ?real? world of the books. > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) lizzyben: What you're supposed to learn is that JKR is making A Very Important Statement About Death. The problem is, she's not sure what that statement is. The messages are totally contradictory & confusing, as you've pointed out. Should we accept death, or hide from it? Pity the dead, or pity the living? See death as "easy & painless" or horrible? I don't think JKR knows. And it makes the novel thematically hollow. I agree that the treatment of death in DH is totally unbalanced. On the one hand, we have this endless pondering about the abstract notion of Death, and symbolic representations of Death, visits from the Dead, visits to the life after Death, and so on. The novel is positively obsessed with Death, as a concept. And yet when actual people die, it's treated in an almost off-hand, casual manner. Oh, Moody's dead. Fred too. Snape's dead, left in the shack. Oh, by the way, Tonks is dead - did I forget to mention that? Lupin too, oh well. Dobby was the only character who got an actual funeral & burial. The dead weren't honored. It's sort of similar to Sirius' death, actually - he never received a funeral, either, and Harry went from abject grief in OOTP to instant recovery in HBP. DH went straight from terrible deadly battle to "happy! married! babies! 20 years later. There wasn't a mourning period at all - the novels really shied away from actually portraying the grieving process at all. And I think that's why so many fans have such an unsettled feeling about the end of the series - the book never gave us that emotional catharsis, the resolution of grief, that people need in order to heal and move on. And yes, even for fictional characters. There's a reason why people have these ceremonial rituals - they allow people to remember the dead, to honor & celebrate them, and to let them go. JKR, for all her pontificating about Death, couldn't seem to get the basics of mourning down. So the book ran away from death, while also obsessing over it. And with all the Important Messages about Death, there wasn't much wisdom to be found on the subject. lizzyben, who wishes she could get over this series already. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 02:08:49 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:08:49 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177406 > Prep0strus: > It also doesn't make the fable itself work that well for me - I don't > like the inconsistency of one gift being a trick that doesn't work, > one working until you lose it through your own flaws, and one working > perfectly. zgirnius: I think that Death did not deliberately fail to deliver a working device with the Stone. Rather, what the brother asked for is *impossible*. The dead who are not ghosts have moved on to their 'next great adventure' and cannot truly be called back, certainly not to live life again. The Stone brought a shade of the brother's fiancee back, but she was not happy, and could not make him happy, but this was his fault for requesting the impossible. Harry's use was different (as explained in "The Forest Again"). He did not call his dead back to drag them around for him for the indefinite future, he called them back for just a moment, as he prepared to join them, which is why it 'worked' well enough for him. > Prep0strus: > But the first brother doesn???t try to defeat death. zgirnius: But he does. He thinks, with the Elder Wand, he cannot be killed. Oops. >Prep0strus: >And the third > brother DOES try to defeat death with it ??" and he does. zgirnius: I disagree, since I see the setup differently. I would say Death tried to cheat all three brothers. They escaped him fair and square in the river, and there he was trying to entrap them into dying early after all. He succeeded with the first two, the third was too clever for him (as the third brother always is, in these tales). Since death was inappropriately targeting him (rather than allowing his fate to play out as it should) he requested an artifact that would prevent Death's further interference. Yet when his time truly came, he did not try to dodge death. He was not cheating death, he was merely forcing him to play fair. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 02:08:25 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:08:25 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177407 prep0strus wrote: > > There???s been a lot of discussion about Draco, and I???d like to know what would make anyone identify with him or like him. > > There are a number of people who seem to identify with both Snape and Draco, and this I really don???t get, other than the desire to defend the guys who seem mean but might not be. I sort of get why some people respond to young Severus ??" poor, tough family life, weird > clothes, possibly unpopular, bullied to some extent??? But I don???t get where the connection to Draco comes from. > > Draco, in many ways is the opposite of Snape ??" rich, with an influential family (who does love him). And there are so many reasons to dislike him. Carol responds: First, I hope you don't mind my leaving in the ???s (etc.) rather than changing them to apostrophes. I thought you might want to see how the post actually appears and consider using a different program or posting directly from the list to avoid the problem. With regard to Draco, being interested in him as a character and identifying with him are two different things. Draco has a moment or two when we can identify with him if we're honest with ourselves. Who hasn't made a mistake, sometimes a serious one, because they weren't listening to the teacher's or the boss's directions? We may not have been foolish enough to insult a hippogriff, but we've all been rash or foolish and paid the consequences. And I can find a number of reasons to fault Hagrid's teaching (and Dumbledore's hiring practices) in that incident as well. None of that means that I identify with Draco in general or even like him much, but I can understand why he acts as he does. Also, however obnoxious he may be, he *is* attacked twice by Gryffindors and/or DA members without actually having done anything. The second (OoP) could be considered a preemptive strike since his and his friends' wands are out, but the first (GoF) is an attack with wands in retaliation for verbal taunting. However you may feel about that incident, some of us consider such conduct on the part of our heroes questionable or at least worthy of examination. No one is defending Draco's behavior, but some of us are trying to understand it, to figure out what makes him tick. On the whole, the Draco we see in the first five books is not particularly interesting or likeable. It's not his fault that he's rich (so is Harry and so was James), nor should we hold that against him. Nor is his upbringing his fault (though we can certainly hold it against Lucius and Narcissa). But his touting of his father's influence and his use of it against a teacher he doesn't like (Hagrid) is unlikely to arouse the reader's sympathy (even if we don't much care for Hagrid or Buckbeak, either). The pureblood ethic (which I think harks back to the days of witch-burning by Muggles and perhaps also reflects a fear of Squib offspring as the result of marrying a Muggle or Muggleborn) has been indoctrinated into him to such an extent that he sees Muggleborns as inherently inferior and contaminated beings who deserve to be exterminated. IOW, he's a little bigot who would be happy if "the Mudblood Granger" were killed by a Basilisk. Unlike Snape, who has a certain mystique and ambiguity (and who is still disliked by our heroes even after they find out that he saved Harry's life and was thwarting Quirrell), Draco is who he seems to be for the first five books, as we discover when Polyjuiced Ron and Harry talk to him in his own common room. True, they were wrong about his being the Heir of Slytherin, but they weren't wrong about his anti-Muggleborn (and anti-Dumbledore) sympathies. There's no mystique about Draco. He's good at Potions and Quidditch and clever at making badges and song lyrics and (maybe) at manipulating people, but he's spiteful, jealous of Harry, and not very brave. Had it not been for his father's arrest and displacement by Snape as Voldemort's right-hand man (Snape's true loyalties being irrelevant here), Draco might have remained as he was, a less-than-model Prefect (turned Inquisitorial Squad member under Umbridge) who nevertheless cared about getting good marks on his OWLs and beating Gryffindor at Quidditch and making a laughingstock of Harry or Ron, content to gloat that the Dark Lord is back and that he's on the winning side but not yet ready to become a Death Eater himself. But the world is turned upside down for Draco when his idolized father is sent to Azkaban. Quidditch and school no longer matter. Even his rivalry (or whatever it is) with Harry no longer matters once he gets his revenge by Petrifying Harry and stomping on his hand--until Harry finds him crying in a bathroom, at which point their schoolboy duels suddenly metamorphose into a battle between enemies. Something significant has happened to Draco, who is experiencing fear and failure on a grand scale. Harry, seeing Draco lying in his own blood on the floor through a spell that he foolishly cast, is only dimly aware of the change in him, but at least he realizes that he doesn't want Draco dead, especially by his hand. There are more changes to come; Draco learns that he's not a killer; Harry's contempt for him is mingled with pity. Disappointingly for some readers, realistically for others, Draco remains in this state of indecisiveness--hating the reality of being a Death Eater, fearing the consequences to himself and his family of refusing to obey the Dark Lord--for much of DH. The scene in the RoR can be differently interpreted, but the echoes of Snape's words and reasoning suggest that Draco, too, is pretending a loyalty he does not feel, trying to protect Harry (and the diadem?) from his would-be DE friends, especially Crabbe (Goyle, perhaps following Draco's lead or confused by Crabbe's rebellion against Draco, does nothing more than point his wand at Harry). Draco may not be the "good Slytherin" that some of us hoped for, but he's a most reluctant and disillusioned Death Eater and much more human and pitiable in HBP and DH than he was in the earlier books. Harry at first thinks that he's going to be thwarted by Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle in the RoR, but he ends up saving Draco's life, while Draco and the reluctant Ron save the unconscious Goyle. (Harry even regrets Crabbe's death; Ron holds the more usual view that Crabbe got what he deserved.) Even when Draco, now wandless, begs two DEs not to hurt him and claims (untruthfully, IMO) that he's on their side, Harry again saves him while Ron punches him and calls him two-faced. The reader can choose between Ron's and Harry's views or even sympathize a bit with both. Draco will never be brave (in marked contrast to Snape), but at least he has no relish for the life of a Death Eater, for murder and torture and coercion. If Draco can change so drastically from the arrogant bully of OoP and the revenge-seeking would-be murderer of early HBP to the reluctant DE who deflects Crabbe's Unforgiveable Curses, surely he has learned some valuable and painful lessons(?) If Harry can forgive him, surely the reader should consider doing the same(?) Draco's curt nod to Harry stands in marked contrast to Lucius's taunts and even fisticuffs with Arthur Weasley, his slightly older contemporary and schoolfellow. With Harry's words to Albus Severus about Slytherin being okay and a Slytherin headmaster as the bravest man he ever knew, chances are that Albus and Scorpius won't get off to the same rocky start as James and Severus or Harry and Draco. And in yet another generation, the DE-free Slytherin House may be able to put its past behind it as Germany has put its Nazi past behind it, and old wounds may be fully healed. I'm not arguing for my interpretation. I'm only trying to show why I consider Draco and his character arc, especially in HBP and DH, to be interesting and significant, not only for Draco himself and for Slytherin House, for which he is the chief representative of his generation, but for Harry as he gains understanding and develops compassion for a boy he once despised. Carol, whose sympathy for Draco's plight in HBP and DH does not blind her to his own responsibility in helping to create that predicament From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 02:23:42 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:23:42 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177408 > zgirnius: > I think that Death did not deliberately fail to deliver a working > device with the Stone. Rather, what the brother asked for is > *impossible*. The dead who are not ghosts have moved on to > their 'next great adventure' and cannot truly be called back, > certainly not to live life again. The Stone brought a shade of the > brother's fiancee back, but she was not happy, and could not make him > happy, but this was his fault for requesting the impossible. > > Harry's use was different (as explained in "The Forest Again"). He > did not call his dead back to drag them around for him for the > indefinite future, he called them back for just a moment, as he > prepared to join them, which is why it 'worked' well enough for him. Alla: I agree, and moreover whatever was written on the Snitch or stone ( I open at the close? - friend has my book now, cannot double check), it was not written by Dumbledore, it was already there, yes? So I think it indicates exactly what you said - this will work properly only in situation like Harry had, when he is about to join his dead loved ones. > zgirnius: Since death > was inappropriately targeting him (rather than allowing his fate to > play out as it should) he requested an artifact that would prevent > Death's further interference. Yet when his time truly came, he did > not try to dodge death. He was not cheating death, he was merely > forcing him to play fair. > Alla: Zara, you are brilliant :) That is exactly how I saw third brother's behavior as well - forcing death to play fair and accepting it when his time comes. The only thing that to me feels like sort of not flowing per acceptance of the death is that third brother knew himself when his time comes, sort of got to decide, you know? Totally nice wish fulfillment, if you ask me, but goes a little bit against acceptance of the death with head high, sort of. I mean, I would be more pleased if say Death would give up pursuing younger brother and tell him loudly that yes, you win and I would come for you when your time comes, you know? Heee, but that is my variation and say in many many years she comes and searches for him and he comes and takes over cloak or something. So Invisibility cloak really does not bother me for the reasons that you described, but the fact that younger brother got to decide himself, not really bothers, but feels wierd, not very courageous, I do not know. I loved Deathly Hallows story, it reminded me all over again how much of Potterverse IS rooted in fairy tales. IMO of course. From elfundeb at gmail.com Wed Sep 26 02:50:01 2007 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (elfundeb) Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 22:50:01 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <80f25c3a0709251950g5a710972k9d2c9c78ce69f1cd@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177409 Prep0strus: I agree with you about what her moral probably was supposed to be, and even about your analysis of the characters and how they relate to the fable characters... except that third brother. You say, 'live your own life to the fullest, until you have to meet him'. That's nice, but how does an invisibility cloak represent that? Sure, the third brother does lead his own life - has kids, and faces death head high... but what an invisibility cloak represents to me is nothing like that at all. Debbie: As I read the tale, the third brother asked not to be followed by Death so, as Ron points out, Death cannot sneak up on him. The third brother does not desire immortality, only to live his full lifespan before dying. The third brother had the wisdom to know when to take off the cloak and greet Death. Thus, the Cloak protected the third brother only from an unnatural or violent death. Prep0strus: Invisibility represents fear and avoidance. The third brother lives his entire life hiding from death. And as a symbolic device, invisibility appears to be much more about fear, stealth, or shame, rather than courage or acceptance. It feels to me an odd choice to make, other than that Harry already had one at his disposal. But if she were planning this from the beginning, I really don't get it. Debbie: Invisibility has many positive connotations as well. It recalls the anonymous benefactor of Scripture, in contrast to the one who makes a big show of his good works. His sole reward was public awareness of his deed, whereas the first would be rewarded in heaven. If you do something for fame or glory, you will have your full reward right away. However, if you live your life justly and honestly, but quietly, you will be able to meet Death as an equal, without fear. Harry never felt comfortable with his fame, and the Invisibility Cloak allowed him to accomplish much good he could not have achieved in public. Dumbledore's note, which arrived with the Cloak in PS/SS, admonished Harry to "use it well." On the whole, Harry did used the Cloak well. He did not use it to commit crimes, or hide in fear or shame. When he did use the Invisibility Cloak for foolish pleasure (as in the PoA Hogsmeade trip), he was properly called on the carpet for it. The Cloak served its purpose, as Harry was able to keep Death from stealing him away while his mission remained unfinished. However, just as in the tale, when he was ready for Death, "he pulled off the Invisibility Cloak and stuffed it beneath his robes, with his wand." Prep0strus: But the first brother doesn???t try to defeat death. There is no use for the second gift ??" it simply doesn???t work properly. And the third brother DOES try to defeat death with it ??" and he does. Debbie: The first brother intends to use the power of the wand to prevent his own defeat in battle. As a combative man, that sounded like insurance against a violent death. The stone worked well to achieve the second brother's stated objective to humiliate Death further by taking and keeping what belonged to Death. He didn't ask to be happy. Harry used each Hallow justly, and each worked properly for him. The wand gave him power to defeat Voldemort in a duel, the stone brought the dead to give him courage, and he used the Cloak to prevent Death from sneaking up on him before he was ready to face Voldemort. Now that Voldemort has been defeated, and Harry has faced down his own desire for the dead, he keeps only the Cloak, which allows him to escape to normalcy and live a full life until he dies of natural causes. Debbie who would choose the Cloak over the wand or the stone [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 02:53:45 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:53:45 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177410 Prep0strus: > But without a subversive reading that makes down up, light dark, good > bad, and chocolate ice cream taste like Brussels sprouts??? how does one > identify with Draco without feeling bad about the person that they > are? At his best, he???s a misguided little spoiled twit who likes to > have fun at the expense of others. At his worst, he???s a genocidal > monster in the making. I don???t think a funny comeback or two makes up > for that. Magpie: Well, I can't speak up for identifying with him if by that you mean there are ways that I look at Draco and say, "Yup, that's just what I would do/say" or "He's cool!" I have heard plenty of people who identify with him because they did have some of his worse qualities when they were younger and grew out of them (sometimes they were raised by racists etc.). But for me it's not so much identifying with him but he's my favorite character because he has the most compelling issues for me. I think he's in a greatly difficult situation in canon--even before it happens you can see it's coming when Voldemort returns. That he's not an admirable person to begin with just adds to his trouble. Nothing ever goes right for him, but I can see certain things that he cares about that aren't just stupid and evil. It's not a subversive reading, as far as I can see. I mean, one might as well ask JKR why she felt that way, since she gave him a somewhat sympathetic storyline in HBP especially. I doubt she felt badly about herself for feeling sorry for him and creating him and not killing him off for his sins. I guess the short answer is that just as it seems odd to you that anybody could like or identify with the character and still feel okay about themselves, to me it's equally strange that somebody would feel badly about themselves for doing the same. (Given how I like him on some level I probably don't even "get" why other people don't. I mean, I really do, of course, because everybody likes different characters, but you know, I like him because he's the best character.;-) -m (who hopes the "imo" is obviously implied) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 02:54:21 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 02:54:21 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177411 > Alla: > > I agree, and moreover whatever was written on the Snitch or stone ( > I open at the close? - friend has my book now, cannot double > check), it was not written by Dumbledore, it was already there, yes? > > So I think it indicates exactly what you said - this will work > properly only in situation like Harry had, when he is about to join > his dead loved ones. Jen: It was written in Dumbledore's writing, Harry recognized it when he received it from Scrimgeour. I think that was DD trying to save Harry from his own mistakes, knowing he would be tempted by the Resurrection Stone most out of all because of what Harry saw in the Mirror. So it was a safeguard to keep Harry from using the Stone at the wrong time for the wrong reason. Alla: > The only thing that to me feels like sort of not flowing per > acceptance of the death is that third brother knew himself when his > time comes, sort of got to decide, you know? Totally nice wish > fulfillment, if you ask me, but goes a little bit against > acceptance of the death with head high, sort of. > > I mean, I would be more pleased if say Death would give up pursuing > younger brother and tell him loudly that yes, you win and I would > come for you when your time comes, you know? Jen: I guess that was his reward for being more clever than the other two. ;) Actually, it fits in well with what Harry has to do because the third brother chooses death when he has the choice to live forever and hide from death. So he's actually being called the bravest one in that respect, to choose death when he didn't have to die. Alla: > I loved Deathly Hallows story, it reminded me all over again how > much of Potterverse IS rooted in fairy tales. > > IMO of course. Jen: Me too! Loved how the real Hallows played out too, that Harry united them because he wasn't seeking them. Also how he was tempted to find the Elder wand before LV until grief for Dobby changed his course. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Sep 26 03:11:17 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:11:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177412 > Pippin wrote: > > Dumbledore explains in detail why he sent Harry after the Hallows > > while withholding so much information about them. He wanted Harry > > to have them so that Harry would know there was nothing to fear > > in death, but he was afraid that if he made it too easy, Harry > > would misuse the Hallows as Dumbledore had done. He begs > > Harry's forgiveness for not trusting him more. va32h here: Well then Dumbledore is an idiot. Because Harry hasn't been afraid of death since...EVER! In the very first book, when he is a mere 11 year old, he rushed off to save the Philosopher's Stone because he knew even then that dying was better than living under the influence of evil. And every single year since then Harry has willingly risked death to fight the good fight. In GoF, he totally expected to die when he faced Voldemort, and he only wanted to die like a man, fighting to the end. In OoTP, he *wanted* to die, rather than live with the pain of losing Sirius. How the heck can Dumbledore possibly think that Harry fears death? One of the reasons the Hallows plotline is so very lame to me is that Harry is only learning a lesson he learned six years ago - he got the Hallows for the same reason he got the Philosopher's Stone. At 11, Harry was as good a man as he was at 17, which is fine...but makes the whole dang series sort of pointless. lizzybeen wrote: >lizzyben, who wishes she could get over this series already. va32h here: I hear ya. But we're in mourning, and unlike in JKR's world, that takes more than a few minutes. I loved this series, I cherished this series, and its creator turned it into something ugly and repulsive. I'm sort of reminded of the Anne of Green Gables series...Kevin Sullivan created two charming, faithful TV adaptations of the books and then went bonkers with the third series...it was the same characters but in a completely different time period, completely different scenarios, saying totally OOC things...it was surreal! For me, that's DH. I feel like someone bought the rights to the characters and just wrote a completely different story that has no relation to anything else in the series! va32h From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 03:17:28 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 03:17:28 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177413 > Jen: It was written in Dumbledore's writing, Harry recognized it when > he received it from Scrimgeour. I think that was DD trying to save > Harry from his own mistakes, knowing he would be tempted by the > Resurrection Stone most out of all because of what Harry saw in the > Mirror. So it was a safeguard to keep Harry from using the Stone at > the wrong time for the wrong reason. Alla: Oh, OOOPS. So it was DD's writing. Thanks dearest :) Hmmm, do you think Dumbledore then knew for sure that at the extreme need Stone will work OR he was not sure and just wanted to be sure than when Harry tries to use it, it will be in the time of extreme need? Do you know what I am trying to ask? Do you think there is a limitations on when Resurrection stone will work and whether Dumbledore knew that? I mean, supposedly when he tried to put it on in HBP horcrux curse hurt him, but if there was no horcrux curse on the ring, do you think Stone would have worked for Dumbledore or his loved ones already moved on and he would have been at the most in the position of the second brother indeed? > Alla: > > The only thing that to me feels like sort of not flowing per > > acceptance of the death is that third brother knew himself when his > > time comes, sort of got to decide, you know? Totally nice wish > > fulfillment, if you ask me, but goes a little bit against > > acceptance of the death with head high, sort of. > > > > I mean, I would be more pleased if say Death would give up pursuing > > younger brother and tell him loudly that yes, you win and I would > > come for you when your time comes, you know? > > Jen: I guess that was his reward for being more clever than the > other two. ;) Actually, it fits in well with what Harry has to do > because the third brother chooses death when he has the choice to > live forever and hide from death. So he's actually being called the > bravest one in that respect, to choose death when he didn't have to > die. Alla: Oh YES of course, it IS his reward and per fairy tale traditions I have no problem with it, I am just not sure if I can call his behaviour courageous necessarily, you know? I mean, it is courageous in a sense that he decided not to live forever and met Death when he felt his time is right, but I just do not see any analogies, any possible RL analogy with human being deciding for himself how long he can live, if that makes sense. I mean, maybe that is the point that I should not be looking for RL analogies and completely accept that Potterverse is first and foremost firmly rooted in fibble and allegories of fairy tales. And I DO accept it for the most part, I felt that fairy tale reading at the end did turn out FOR ME to be the most beneficial, in a sense of enjoying the story tremendously. But at the same time I always thought that in some aspects Potterverse reflects our life ( emotions, etc). So, when third brother accepts death, it resonates with me, but when he decides on his own how long he can live, it reads like .... wish fullfilment in fairy tale? Hee, I talked myself in the corner. I think it is a pretty good thing, you know. Emotionally satisfying and all that. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 04:12:47 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 04:12:47 -0000 Subject: Snape and some Draco ) WAS Re: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177414 > Prep0strus: > I sort of get why some > people respond to young Severus ??" poor, tough family life, weird > clothes, possibly unpopular, bullied to some extent??? I mean, I still > think you could better find a connection in these areas with aspects > of Harry, Ron, Neville, without the whole Death Eater thing. But I > don???t get where the connection to Draco comes from. zgirnius: It's not that I dislike the characters you name - I feel for Ron always having hand-me-downs and wanting to prove himself, I can relate to his temper. I feel for Neville for being the kid with no close friends in the early years, and being the butt of everyone's jokes and a target for Draco et. al. I have always identified with little miss know-it-all throughout the books, and her difficulties making friends in a new world in the first. I admire Harry's feisty attitude towards people who try to put him down. Young Sev, IMO, unites all of these characteristics in one person. Plus, he is intellectual in a way none of them seems to be, with an interest in the hows and whys of magic, and is the only one of the characters described as a greasy-haired, big-nosed oddball. (That one just hits close to home .) So naturally, I prefer him to the rest of them. The whole Death Eater thing is, I have to say, not a turn-off for me, that's an attitude I really don't understand. Why should I only relate to characters who have always been, with only small deviations therefrom, 'good'? I certainly recognize within myself a capacity to not to be, even while I'd like to think I have mostly managed to avoid acting on it. The particular tests of character Severus seems to have faced, and failed, as a young man are ones that strike me as difficult, because my honest assessment is that they would have been difficult for me, personally, as they were issues near and dear to me in my youth. As a result, I look at Snape's decisions as a young man and see something I could conceivably imagine myself doing in a nightmare version of my own life. He wanted recognition and success - it is not entirely clear to me he saw alternate ways to achieve these desires, in his world (even if they were achievable). And he wanted acceptance, which he found among his Slytherin friends. So he did what he had to do to get what he thought would bring him happiness, and became a Death Eater. Which, of course, brings me to what I really *admire* about Snape. Having dug himself into this godawfully deep pit through his own bad choices, he found the courage to *do* something about it. This meant also the courage to face great danger, since the thing he did, to become Dumbledore's spy, was lethally dangerous (a lethality that finally caught up to him in DH). The manner in which he went about it, further, more or less guaranteed that he would never again have those things (recognition, acceptance by a group) for which he chose to do evil in the first place, yet another sort of courage. > Prep0strus: >At his best, he???s a misguided little spoiled twit who likes to > have fun at the expense of others. At his worst, he???s a genocidal > monster in the making. I don???t think a funny comeback or two makes up > for that. zgirnius: He's not a character I identify with, but he's a character I have always enjoyed. I do like his nasty sense of humor, that's part of it. I've never seen the monster in the making with Draco - I definitely always saw him as on the misguided end of the spectrum. I have a great deal of difficulty holding him responsible for his 'genocidal' views. With his family background, I imagine he learned these ideas from babyhood, and associates loyalty to these ideas and Voldemort, the leader of the movement, with loyalty to his parents. (A loyalty he has always exhibited, and which I find a positive trait as well). That others with similar backgrounds made different choices as kids does not impress me as a reason to dislike Draco. Most important, however, is that when he must act on these beliefs, he suddenly finds that he does not really want to. Which tells me that despite his lip service to, and outward pride in, these beliefs, he has no interest in genocide. He really could have killed Dumbledore, on the Tower. He had all the time in the world, all the incentive (Voldemort's threats, if his beliefs did not suffice), and all the opportunity. Even if he lacked the resolve for an Unforgivable, he could have tossed the old man off the tower Muggle style, or using a first year spell like Wingardium Leviosa. Yet he hesitated even after the other Death Eaters showed up. > Prep0strus: > I guess perseverance can be considered > a positive trait... but when it's perseverance in pursuit of > unpleasant and wrong goals, it kind of makes it a wash for me. zgirnius: It's been said before (by me among others), but Draco is the Wile E. Coyote of the wizarding world. I always loved old Wile E. better than that obnoxious Roadrunner, and always hoped for an episode in which he might, for a change, win in a cartoon way. (Rowling even wrote me the scene in HBP, though I was too worried about Harry being *gasp* killed to fully appreciate it). > Prep0strus: > I agree. I thought, especially after HBP, we would see a true > redemption. I don't, however, feel we've gotten that in DH. zgirnius: I know it is not your main point, but I disagree. With all seven books done, I look at Draco and see a young man who willingly endangered the lives of some of his fellow students, and enjoys a good laugh at the expense of people he dislikes or considers beneath himself. Also a young man who loves his parents and friends, and will risk his life for them. I could, in my own view, be describing Sirius Black in the above paragraph (saving the reference to love of parents, naturally). Oddly enough, there seems to be a reader or two who identifies with this character. > Prep0strus: > Caring for another person does not instantly make you redeemed or > wonderful. He had friends, and he didn't want them to die. The > question is whether he would have attempted to save Harry or Ron or > Hermione if the situation were reversed. zgirnius: Oh, now I am even more happy I attempted a parallel with Sirius! We know Sirius would have risked death for James, and we also know what he would do if, say, the situation were different and it was Severus who was in danger. (Nothing. Exactly what he *did* do when it was). > prep0strus: > Harry risks his neck for the people > who were trying to destroy him, and that's what makes him the 'hero' - > like Disney's Beast or Simba. Draco isn't the 'villain' because he > doesn't turn around and stab him after being rescued. But simply not > wanting a friend to die does not make him suddenly wonderful. zgirnius: So are you saying that he would need to be the hero to be redeemed? And yet, you say you expected him to be redeemed? It seems to me that after just barely avoiding becoming a murderer in HBP, for Draco to be shown as a person with an aversion to torture and murder with the courage to risk his life for a friend and some desire to get way from/interfere with Voldemort (his refusal to indetify Ron and Hermione), is a huge step up. > Prep0strus: > But with Draco, it's a little more personal. He's the bully that > preys on weakness. He's the rich kid that gets whatever he wants. > He's a racist. He doesn't respect life. zgirnius: Except he does. He just does not realize it until the whole thing becomes real to him, when he himself must kill or die. > Prep0strus: > I don't want to kill > him either, exactly - just smack some sense into him. zgirnius: I see no need, Rowling did a fine job of it for me. > Prep0strus: > He's more sympathetic towards the end because he's beaten down. but > he's never earned anything in his life, and doesn't really earn the > right to a good and free life at the end. Despite doing everything > wrong, things turn out ok for him. zgirnius: He does not do everything wrong. He is presented with the motive and opportunity to be much worse than he is, and doesn't. > Prep0strus: > Well, he may not be Dudley, but getting those brooms to be on the > team, or getting Buckbeak executed shows how his father his willing to > use his influence. zgirnius: I always thought the Buckbeak thing was not a gift of Daddy to Draco dear, but rather the other way around. In CoS, Dumbledore got Lucius thrown off the Board of Governors (and I am sure Lucius suspected Dumbledore was involved in the destruction of the Diary as well). Then, in PoA Draco hands revenge to him on a platter. Lucius has the perfect pretext to embarass the school and strike at Dumbledore through Hagrid From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Sep 26 05:21:36 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:21:36 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177415 Eggplant: > Yes, Harry was alive because Voldemort was still alive, he was only > injured when he tried to kill Harry in the forest because he still > had the snake. Dana: I disagree with this assessment because this would imply that the soul bit in Harry was somehow more powerful then any of LV's other soul pieces and that is not how I perceived it. I don't think that Voldemort's life dependent on the soul piece residing in Harry for him to stay alive and actually this would conflict with what we actually see happening. When Harry comes back the piece of Voldemort's soul is no longer there and thus if your assessment was correct Voldemort would not be able to live and that is not what we see. Not even Nagini's death has any lasting effect on Voldemort within that specific time frame. Harry's return did not depend on the soul piece attached to his but on the blood LV used to regain himself a body. So as long as that body had any vital signs Harry could return to the living world. Eggplant: > But he would have if then he was hit with another backfiring AK > curse,and soon after that he was. Dumbledore certainly expected > Harry to die and said as much to Snape. I can think of absolutely > no reason Dumbledore would lie about that, not to Snape, not when > he's angry at Dumbledore for leading Lilly Potter's son to > slaughter like a pig. But in Dumbledore's defense he wasn't asking > Harry to do anything he wasn't willing to do himself. Dumbledore > could be very cold blooded when he needed to be, and in war you > need to be. Dana: What makes you so certain DD wouldn't lie to Snape? DD did not have a habit of confiding in Snape as we have seen. Snape was only on a need- to-know basis with DD and nothing more. Snape was angry about that too, remember? DD did lie to Snape because it was essential for the plan to work that Harry only got a minimum of information to act on and make sure that Harry would not make the crucial mistake of attempting to kill LV before the soul piece residing in him was effectively taken care off. As you probably remember DD ordered Snape to tell Harry when he saw LV keeping Nagini close, so DD was counting on Harry having this information before he would attempt to take Nagini out because DD would know that Harry would have needed to expose himself to LV to even get to Nagini. With making sure that Harry had this information before Nagini was killed, he ensured that Harry would not fight LV in his attempt to kill Nagini and thus risking killing the only thing that would give Harry a chance to live. If Nagini would have been death and Harry would have fought LV then LV could not die because he still had one soul piece binding him to the living world -> the one residing in Harry. He would turn into Vapormort again and if Harry had sacrificed himself afterwards then his own death would have been permanent too. So by having Harry sacrifice himself without fighting LV, Dumbledore would be sure that this would not happen. The soul piece within Harry would be killed but as long as LV still had his remaining soul living in his new body, the blood LV used to make it would bind Harry to the land of the living. So in the event that LV and Harry would both get killed in a fight and Harry had failed to take care of Nagini beforehand then LV would have had a chance to return, while Harry did not. So DD would need to make sure that this would not occur at all cost and therefore he could only ensure this by letting Snape relay the message that Harry needed to die by LV's hand without putting up a fight. Not fighting LV would ensure LV's body would survive and thus provide Harry a way to return. Also I think Dumbledore wanted to prevent LV using legilimens, and get this knowledge from Harry or even Snape and which would surely have resulted in Voldemort not killing Harry. If Voldemort had not killed Harry then he still would have been immortal with or without Nagini. So again I conclude that LV being effected by killing Harry was only because LV killed the link Harry had with him, forcefully, but that it was not an indication that LV would have died at the same time Harry did because if he had died and Nagini was the only soul piece keeping him bound to the living world then LV would have been vapormort and Harry would have lost the ability to return himself because it was dependent on the body's survival (LV's) and not on the survival of LV's soul. JMHO Dana From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 05:34:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:34:32 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177416 Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > JKR's writing was described as "Grade B" It's really not surprising that you should hear this criticism of JKR from certain literary types, put yourself in their place; you've written a precious little book that got some good reviews from other literature snobs but your book only sold 3000 copies, JKR has sold 400 million and counting, you live in a third floor walk up and she buys a castile in Scotland. Now you're asked to review JKR's latest book. Lots of people can write a book that impresses literary snobs, but those who can create a worldwide literary sensation only come around once or twice a century. > someone pointed out the "she said > / he said + adverb" problem, something > that I had NEVER noticed before "I have noticed that before", he said furiously, "And it is a valid criticism of JKR's early books, she seems to have never found an adverb she didn't like, especially in dialogue attribution. Jim Dale said he was flummoxed by one line of dialog, according to the book "Snape hissed" it but the sentence contained no S in it." He said furiously "but by book 6 this was much less of a problem and by book 7 she had overcome her adverb fixation entirely". But I don't understand why an editor didn't advise her to use fewer adverbs, especially "furiously". > But, to me, the ideas, the plot > development, the complexity, and > the characters all overshadow > the problem with overuse of adverbs. I agree 100%, but some writers think what you say is unimportant, the important thing is how you say it, and that is why they can only sell 3000 books and the remainders go to the pulp mill for recycling. Carol" How is "Snape sounded furious" > any better than "Snape said furiously" Better than either would simply be "Snape said". I believe furious or furiously should be used only when a character is so enraged you think he is on the point of murder, otherwise the word looses its power from overuse. And I think the trouble with adverbs is they all end in that stupid "ly" and that can tire the ear after too many repetitions. Eggplant From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 05:51:32 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 05:51:32 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177417 "Steve" wrote: > how does 'everyone' know about it? Hundreds of people witnessed Harry's duel with Voldemort and heard Harry say he was the master of the Elder wand, and they saw a VERY convincing demonstration that what Harry said was true. > we would then have to add those injuries > to the earlier parts of the story to > document them. My idea was that Harry received those injuries sometime during the last 19 years and let the reader speculate exactly how. > one of the first rules of writing is > 'don't use a fancy word when a simple > word will do'. I don't think "helix" is a fancy word, if JKR's readers don't know what it means then they certainly should, what with DNA and all. Eggplant From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Sep 26 06:28:41 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:28:41 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177418 Carol responds: > Soul bits don't go to some equivalent of King's Cross when they are > released from the Horcrux that holds them. According to Hermione, > our resident expert on the subject, "a Horcrux is the complete > opposite of a human being. . . . [W]hatever happens to your body, > your soul will survive, untouched. But it's the other way around > with a Horcrux. The fragment inside it depends on its container, > its enchanted body. It can't exist without it" (104). Dana: Your explanation is very well constructed but I do not agree with your interpretation. If you die then your soul goes to the afterlife in JKR's world, while your body remains behind (well at least in most cases unless you're killed by drapery) and thus every independent piece of LV's soul goes to this in between stage just as every other soul. They can't exist in the living world without their casings but that is not to say that these soul pieces stop existing in themselves in essence because otherwise LV's conscious soul would have stopped to exit when the spell backfired in GH but it didn't because his other soul pieces kept him from moving on. They go to the abyss like any other soul but they are so maimed that they are no longer able to go beyond this shadowy stage, they no longer have any choice like "normal" souls do. So in a sense they will remain between the world of the living and the death. LV's soul piece that we saw can't stand up and take the train so to speak and it can't return to the land of the living as a ghost either. So they will just exist in this abyss for eternity. What we saw WAS the piece of soul attached to Harry and in essence DD was right as this soul piece was destroyed because it no longer has a choice to do anything from that moment on. LV's conscious soul can no longer depend on it for his survival and on its own it can't move on to the next stage of death or return to the world of the living. Only true remorse could have connected LV's conscious soul piece to the lost pieces making it whole enough for him to move beyond that shadowy stage and take the train to the beyond and thus have a chance to live whole again in the afterlife. Because he was incapable of doing so, every single soul piece he split off, will independently live within this abyss forever with no chance to either move back (ghost) or move forward (afterlife). So in short, to me, the piece of soul we saw in Harry's vision *was* the soul piece that had resided in Harry for all those years but it could not longer perform its duty as horcrux and thus essentially it was destroyed but not non-existent in the deeper meaning of death (or destruction). JMHO Dana From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 07:02:10 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:02:10 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: <9D6CDBD1-D0D0-4833-A627-48EBFE5EDF42@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177419 --- Laura Lynn Walsh wrote: > > > On 2007, Sep 25, , at 13:21, Steve wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > I think one of the first rules of writing is 'don't > > use a fancy word when a simple word will do'. Don't > > use 'circumambulate' when what you really mean is > > 'walk around'. Certainly do use your vocabulary if > > you have it, but it should clarify not obscure. > > > > Just a few thoughts. > > > > Steve/bboyminn > Laura: > > Which leads into my question/observation: > > In another newsgroup that I belong to, the book under > discussion was HP and the Deathly Hallows. JKR's > writing was described as "Grade B". I had never > understood why book people looked down on her > writing so much, ... > bboyminn: One problem with 'literary' writing is the incessant need for style over substance. As an example, in most high school English Composition classes, you are usually given two grades. Your composition might come back looking like this +C/-B. Meaning that from a technical literary and style aspect, you did C+ work; from a storytelling aspect, you did B- work. Too many post-modern realists believe that a book should be all style. They operate under the mistaken belief that if you do everything 'technically' correct then you writing something of significants. Of course, any rational person, and certainly the buying public, know that isn't true. We don't want perfect style; we want a good captivating story. I'll take a good story badly written over a bad story perfectly written every time. Of course, ideally, I want a good story nicely written. As for technical style, JKR breaks many many rules. For example, she uses asides and parenthetical expressions. She also uses 'all-caps' expressions. Your high school English teacher will generally hold these against you. However, I think JKR weaves them skillfully into her story, and further believe that they add to rather than subtract from the story. Finally, the story itself. To me story, not style, is the God of good writing. JKR is a master story- teller. She weaves a magical story spell that many many many many many nights has keep me up reading way past my bedtime and into the dawn. So, after all this rambling, maybe Grade B is about right from a technical perspective with regard to JKR's writing, but for me she is absolutely Grade A++ in storytelling. > Laura: > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > before, even though I have read all of the books multiple > times and listened to them on audio in the American, > British, and German versions. ... bboyminn: The adverb thing I think refers, as others have said, to JKR's tendency to say - He said angrily... Said Harry softly... ...Ron said shyly... ...Hermione said furiously... In the earlier books, she maybe over does it a bit, but most of the time I am so caught up in the story and so interest in what is happening to the characters, that I don't notice it. Though I will concede she has improved in the later books. Still adverbs are a valid literary device, and work quite well if you mix it up a bit with other methods. For what it's worth. Steve/bboyminn From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 07:23:56 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 07:23:56 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177420 --- "eggplant107" wrote: > > "Steve" wrote: > > > how does 'everyone' know about it? > eggplant: > > Hundreds of people witnessed Harry's duel with > Voldemort and heard Harry say he was the master of the > Elder wand, and they saw a VERY convincing demonstration > that what Harry said was true. > bboyminn: I think I even conceded this point. Yes, people do know that Harry is the Master of the Elder Wand, but what is the point of defeating the Master unless you also intend to take the Wand? You were specifically speaking, if I understand correctly, of the meeting in the Head's office where they chose the disposition of the Wand. No one knows, beyond those in the room, what happened to the Wand. Was it turned over to the Ministry? Does Harry still have it? Does it remain at Hogwarts? Has it been destroyed? Regardless of what they actually do with the Wand, the only thing that really matter is what they TELL people they did with the Wand. Saying it was destroyed would be the smartest thing to do. There is no point in defeating Harry, if it doesn't lead to the Wand. And even if Harry is defeated at some point in the future and the Wand takes on a new Master, it still doesn't do any good, unless the person who defeated Harry could get their hands on the Wand. Again, the danger is not in knowing Harry is the Master, it is in people thinking they can get their hands on the Wand in a way that allows them to become its true Master. No Wands mean no advantage in attacking and defeating Harry. It doesn't matter that people know Harry is the Master, what matters is what people were told about the disposition of the Wand. I'm saying, if they are smart, they tell people it was destroyed. > bboyminn: > > one of the first rules of writing is > > 'don't use a fancy word when a simple > > word will do'. > Eggplant: > I don't think "helix" is a fancy word, if JKR's > readers don't know what it means then they certainly > should, what with DNA and all. > > Eggplant bboyminn: Helix is not an uncommon or unknown word, but it is, in my view, and unnecessary obfuscation of a simple concept. 'Spiral' is a lot more simple and straight forward that 'Helix'. In my view, the use of 'helix' would have been an unnecessary complication. But then, that's just my opinion. Steve/bboyminn From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Wed Sep 26 08:26:23 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:26:23 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Message-ID: <20070926182623.CUJ23518@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177421 > Carol responds: > > First, I hope you don't mind my leaving in the > ???s (etc.) rather than > changing them to apostrophes. I thought you might > want to see how the > post actually appears and consider using a different > program or > posting directly from the list to avoid the problem. > > With regard to Draco, being interested in him as a > character and > identifying with him are two different things. Draco > has a moment or > two when we can identify with him if we're honest > with ourselves. Who > hasn't made a mistake, sometimes a serious one, > because they weren't > listening to the teacher's or the boss's directions? > We may not have > been foolish enough to insult a hippogriff, but > we've all been rash or > foolish and paid the consequences. And I can find a > number of reasons > to fault Hagrid's teaching (and Dumbledore's hiring > practices) in that > incident as well. None of that means that I identify > with Draco in > general or even like him much, but I can understand > why he acts as he > does. > > Also, however obnoxious he may be, he *is* attacked > twice by > Gryffindors and/or DA members without actually > having done anything. > The second (OoP) could be considered a preemptive > strike since his and > his friends' wands are out, but the first (GoF) is > an attack with > wands in retaliation for verbal taunting. However > you may feel about > that incident, some of us consider such conduct on > the part of our > heroes questionable or at least worthy of > examination. No one is > defending Draco's behavior, but some of us are > trying to understand > it, to figure out what makes him tick. > > On the whole, the Draco we see in the first five > books is not > particularly interesting or likeable. It's not his > fault that he's > rich (so is Harry and so was James), nor should we > hold that against > him. Nor is his upbringing his fault (though we can > certainly hold it > against Lucius and Narcissa). But his touting of his > father's > influence and his use of it against a teacher he > doesn't like (Hagrid) > is unlikely to arouse the reader's sympathy (even if > we don't much > care for Hagrid or Buckbeak, either). The pureblood > ethic (which I > think harks back to the days of witch-burning by > Muggles and perhaps > also reflects a fear of Squib offspring as the > result of marrying a > Muggle or Muggleborn) has been indoctrinated into > him to such an > extent that he sees Muggleborns as inherently > inferior and > contaminated beings who deserve to be exterminated. > IOW, he's a little > bigot who would be happy if "the Mudblood Granger" > were killed by a > Basilisk. > > Unlike Snape, who has a certain mystique and > ambiguity (and who is > still disliked by our heroes even after they find > out that he saved > Harry's life and was thwarting Quirrell), Draco is > who he seems to be > for the first five books, as we discover when > Polyjuiced Ron and Harry > talk to him in his own common room. True, they were > wrong about his > being the Heir of Slytherin, but they weren't wrong > about his > anti-Muggleborn (and anti-Dumbledore) sympathies. > There's no mystique > about Draco. He's good at Potions and Quidditch and > clever at making > badges and song lyrics and (maybe) at manipulating > people, but he's > spiteful, jealous of Harry, and not very brave. > > Had it not been for his father's arrest and > displacement by Snape as > Voldemort's right-hand man (Snape's true loyalties > being irrelevant > here), Draco might have remained as he was, a > less-than-model Prefect > (turned Inquisitorial Squad member under Umbridge) > who nevertheless > cared about getting good marks on his OWLs and > beating Gryffindor at > Quidditch and making a laughingstock of Harry or > Ron, content to gloat > that the Dark Lord is back and that he's on the > winning side but not > yet ready to become a Death Eater himself. But the > world is turned > upside down for Draco when his idolized father is > sent to Azkaban. > Quidditch and school no longer matter. Even his > rivalry (or whatever > it is) with Harry no longer matters once he gets his > revenge by > Petrifying Harry and stomping on his hand--until > Harry finds him > crying in a bathroom, at which point their schoolboy > duels suddenly > metamorphose into a battle between enemies. > Something significant has > happened to Draco, who is experiencing fear and > failure on a grand > scale. Harry, seeing Draco lying in his own blood on > the floor through > a spell that he foolishly cast, is only dimly aware > of the change in > him, but at least he realizes that he doesn't want > Draco dead, > especially by his hand. There are more changes to > come; Draco learns > that he's not a killer; Harry's contempt for him is > mingled with pity. > > Disappointingly for some readers, realistically for > others, Draco > remains in this state of indecisiveness--hating the > reality of being a > Death Eater, fearing the consequences to himself and > his family of > refusing to obey the Dark Lord--for much of DH. The > scene in the RoR > can be differently interpreted, but the echoes of > Snape's words and > reasoning suggest that Draco, too, is pretending a > loyalty he does not > feel, trying to protect Harry (and the diadem?) from > his would-be DE > friends, especially Crabbe (Goyle, perhaps following > Draco's lead or > confused by Crabbe's rebellion against Draco, does > nothing more than > point his wand at Harry). > > Draco may not be the "good Slytherin" that some of > us hoped for, but > he's a most reluctant and disillusioned Death Eater > and much more > human and pitiable in HBP and DH than he was in the > earlier books. > Harry at first thinks that he's going to be thwarted > by Draco, Crabbe, > and Goyle in the RoR, but he ends up saving Draco's > life, while Draco > and the reluctant Ron save the unconscious Goyle. > (Harry even regrets > Crabbe's death; Ron holds the more usual view that > Crabbe got what he > deserved.) Even when Draco, now wandless, begs two > DEs not to hurt him > and claims (untruthfully, IMO) that he's on their > side, Harry again > saves him while Ron punches him and calls him > two-faced. The reader > can choose between Ron's and Harry's views or even > sympathize a bit > with both. Draco will never be brave (in marked > contrast to Snape), > but at least he has no relish for the life of a > Death Eater, for > murder and torture and coercion. > > If Draco can change so drastically from the arrogant > bully of OoP and > the revenge-seeking would-be murderer of early HBP > to the reluctant DE > who deflects Crabbe's Unforgiveable Curses, surely > he has learned some > valuable and painful lessons(?) If Harry can forgive > him, surely the > reader should consider doing the same(?) Draco's > curt nod to Harry > stands in marked contrast to Lucius's taunts and > even fisticuffs with > Arthur Weasley, his slightly older contemporary and > schoolfellow. With > Harry's words to Albus Severus about Slytherin being > okay and a > Slytherin headmaster as the bravest man he ever > knew, chances are that > Albus and Scorpius won't get off to the same rocky > start as James and > Severus or Harry and Draco. And in yet another > generation, the DE-free > Slytherin House may be able to put its past behind > it as Germany has > put its Nazi past behind it, and old wounds may be > fully healed. > > I'm not arguing for my interpretation. I'm only > trying to show why I > consider Draco and his character arc, especially in > HBP and DH, to be > interesting and significant, not only for Draco > himself and for > Slytherin House, for which he is the chief > representative of his > generation, but for Harry as he gains understanding > and develops > compassion for a boy he once despised. > > Carol, whose sympathy for Draco's plight in HBP and > DH does not blind > her to his own responsibility in helping to create > that predicament Sharon: Brilliant analysis Carol. I agree wholeheartedly and do not even have anything to add! From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 12:39:00 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 12:39:00 -0000 Subject: What if...you do magic when you're 15? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177422 So, a new question has popped into my head as I was rereading PS/SS for the fiftieth time... What if, like Neville, you don't show any signs of being magical until you are older, but unlike Neville, you aren't eight...but eighteen. Or even just older than 11 - what happens then? Do you start Hogwarts as a 15 year old in first year? Do you not get that chance, and you just have to learn magic on your own (which seems unbelievably dangerous)? There was never an explanation for what would happen if your witchy side showed up late. This is really a nitpicky thing, i know, but I can't get it out of my head. There is such a big deal made of not using magic outside of Hogwarts, and making sure witxhes and wizards are properly trained and taught how to be responsible with magic...and never an explanation of what would happen if your magic showed up when you were 13, instead of younger than 11. Just curious...KATIE From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Sep 26 13:04:03 2007 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:04:03 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: List Disagreements, Posting Expectations and Courtesy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177424 Greetings from Hexquarters! In the last few weeks, the Elves have noticed several posts which can be construed as attacks on individual posters rather than disagreement with their opinions. We understand that it can be difficult to discern when a statement will cause offense, especially when your own opinion is heartfelt. In light of our divergent emotional and intellectual responses to the books, and the way in which those views may be expressed, we ask our posters to remember the following: *We are a very diverse group brought together by the HP series. Given our wide range of of experience and differences in values/belief systems, educational background, and understandings of the function and meaning of literature, our readings and reactions to DH and the series as a whole will necessarily differ. Different readers will attach different meanings and draw different inferences from the same words. *We welcome all viewpoints, positive and negative. Especially in this period of adjustment to the reality of a completed canon, please remember to respect the validity of other approaches to the books than your own, no matter how strong your disagreement, keeping in mind that you're unlikely to win many converts to your positions. *When posting, aim to make sure others understand your position and provide canon references to support your arguments. Do not press an argument in the face of irreconciliable differences. *If you feel that your position has been misunderstood or that someone has made a factual error, please point such things out gently. No one enjoys feeling attacked or having their mistakes highlighted. Remember that our posting rules ask members to be courteous to one another. Also consider how other members of our diverse international community might react to your post and remember that sarcasm can be difficult to convey in written form. *In particular, please keep in mind that where beliefs clash, it's easy to misinterpret a comment about the books as a personal insult, and accordingly, choose your words carefully, use opinion language (e.g., "I believe" or "in my opinion) where appropriate, try to avoid characterizing the people who hold opposing viewpoints, and where someone characterizes your position in a way that raises your defenses, seek clarification before assuming you have been insulted. Happy Posting! The List Elves From va32h at comcast.net Wed Sep 26 13:26:08 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:26:08 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177425 > > Laura wrote: > > > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > > before, even though I have read all of the books multiple > > times and listened to them on audio in the American, > > British, and German versions. ... va32h: I too only noticed it when it was pointed out to me. I don't think there's anything wrong with "he said/she said"...certainly authors should use words with varying connotations when those words are necessary...but as often as not "said" really is the most appropriate word. In the course of normal events (normal by HP standards anyway), characters don't scoff and smirk and hiss and mumble their way through every conversation. When one speaks in an ordinary tone of voice, that's "he sad/she said". I find that if I read a story that uses a lot of alternatives to "said", I start to think "okay, this author is trying too hard to use variants of 'said'" and it starts sounding fake. I would quibble with JKR in that she tends to use the word "mutter" when characters are casting spells, and I don't think that word gives off the right connotation. Muttering is something one does when ones is insulting a person and doesn't want them to hear, IMO. She also uses "bemused" a great deal...no one is ever bewildered, perplexed, confused, thrown for a loop, etc. in her world. They are always bemused. va32h From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 13:36:55 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:36:55 -0000 Subject: Sending the Trio after the Hallows (Re: Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177426 Pippin: > Dumbledore explains in detail why he sent Harry after the Hallows > while withholding so much information about them. He wanted Harry > to have them so that Harry would know there was nothing to fear > in death, but he was afraid that if he made it too easy, Harry > would misuse the Hallows as Dumbledore had done. He begs > Harry's forgiveness for not trusting him more. Jen: I read it as fitting in with Harry's quest to learn the truth about Dumbledore and himself, that the Hallows were important for Harry's past as the last descendent of Ignotus Peverell and owner of one of the Hallows. Plus, Dumbledore expected Voldemort to seek out the Elder Wand. Since Harry never learned Occlumency, he'd be able to see this happening and might leave the Horcruxes to find out what Voldemort was after. 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.) Pippin: > As it unfolds, it can really only have been the Stone that > Dumbledore wanted Harry to use. > > Harry already had the cloak. Snape was supposed to have had the > wand, and, presumably to know what it was, because otherwise > Dumbledore could not have been sure that Snape would take it. > It's not clear what Dumbledore expected Snape to do with > the (secretly) disempowered wand but it might have kept > Voldemort from attacking him, since Voldemort knew > he'd come so close to being beaten by that wand at > the MoM. It's interesting that Snape raises a wand in > the Shrieking Shack but apparently decides not to fight. > Dumbledore's "Poor Severus" remark suggests he didn't > intend for Snape to die as he did. That this contradicts > "Don't pity the dead" suggests two intriguing possibilities: > one, that Snape isn't dead (I wish!) or more likely, IMO, > at this point Harry has worked out for himself that no > one who has not abused their soul as thoroughly as > Voldemort did has anything to fear from death. Jen: What is explicit in the story is that Dumbledore planned for Snape to end up with the wand, and for the Trio to seek the Hallows since he prepared his will before his death. If Draco hadn't disarmed DD, I speculate he expected Hermione to trace the wand to Snape at about the time Snape was ready to reveal his memories to Harry, thus they might work together. That sounds like an Optimistic! Dumbledore plan to me. Perhaps the idea was for Harry to finish off the Horcruxes and Snape to actually kill LV if Harry didn't end up surviving (or even if he did). For one thing, that would clear Snape's name. Snape qualifies as a wizard of uncommon skill and power, especially with the element of surprise on his side and the Elder wand. But, 'that but didn't work out' and Draco was the master. Jen From irenem316 at comcast.net Wed Sep 26 13:14:01 2007 From: irenem316 at comcast.net (Irene Matteucci) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:14:01 -0000 Subject: What if...you do magic when you're 15? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177427 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > > So, a new question has popped into my head as I was rereading PS/SS for the fiftieth time... > > What if, like Neville, you don't show any signs of being magical > until you are older, but unlike Neville, you aren't eight...but > eighteen. Or even just older than 11 - what happens then? Do you > start Hogwarts as a 15 year old in first year? Do you not get that > chance, and you just have to learn magic on your own (which seems > unbelievably dangerous)? As I understand it, all magical children are listed in a book at Hogwarts the day they are born. No one probably knows who's in this book but the Headmaster - so Neville's family would not have known that he was listed until he got the letter. So, even if a witch or wizard did not show signs of magic at a young age, Hogwarts would know that it was there and offer them a place at the school at age 11. Irene From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 13:55:27 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 13:55:27 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make)/Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177428 > > > Laura wrote: > > > > > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > > > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > > > before, even though I have read all of the books multiple > > > times and listened to them on audio in the American, > > > British, and German versions. ... > > va32h: > > I too only noticed it when it was pointed out to me. I don't think > there's anything wrong with "he said/she said"...certainly authors > should use words with varying connotations when those words are > necessary...but as often as not "said" really is the most appropriate > word. Magpie: Oh my-there is absolutely *nothing* wrong with using the word said. On the contrary, it's what the author *should* use most of the time. There's a strange push to turn people into bad writers in some schools with teachers telling kids to find alternatives to this word, but for the most part professionals use "said." It's an invisible word. Nothing's more clunky than when people constantly use different words for it. "He exposited" "He murmured" --or my personal favorite written satirically to describe a stiff actor's delivery: "He shatnered." The problem with JKR if one exists (and I think it does) is the use of adverbs after said, which is usually unnecessary. It's not trusting the dialogue to do its job and directing the readers on how the line was delivered. Again, this isn't something that shouldn't ever be done by any means, but it gets distracting when there's tons of them in a scene, which is what sometimes happens in HP. **ON DRACO** Reading the responses I realized there was one other aspect of the character that I never quite get. I mean, I do get it but I don't agree. It's the idea that one should hold it against Draco that at first he had no problem with the idea of killing Dumbledore. But it seems to me that to even suggest that you have to put a different mindset into Draco. Wanting to try to kill Dumbledore is an act of bravery, twisted as it is. That's what it's supposed to be testing, among other things, for him. Since death isn't even something real at this point for Draco, he might as well be being sent to slay a dragon or steal some valuable object that's highly guarded. Naturally, this being the DEs, the task is actually immoral, but I don't think the original agreement to do it would take that into consideration at all. Killing Dumbledore is simply the dark mirror image of Harry's own quest to kill Voldemort. When Draco discovers he has a problem with just that aspect he does it on his own, and he probably has very little language or understanding to even get what his problem is. No doubt the way he's been raised the only way he can understand his issues with killing is to think he's a coward or he's weak--as Bellatrix seems to be rubbing in at Malfoy Manor. This is one of the things I thought we'd see as part of the end of his story in DH, actually, that he'd get a new understanding about this. Instead, oddly, Draco seems to accept his impulses to want to protect people from being murdered even if he hates them, while sadly never seeing this as a potential strength. It's not like either of his parents even share this view with him. I thought Dumbledore's interest in him in HBP was about this sort of thing, giving him the dawning of understanding that would lead us to believe he could grow into an actual good man, but that sort of thing seemed expressly against where DH was taking us. It's like the joke's still on him for the rest of his life. -m From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Sep 26 14:05:00 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 06:05:00 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <08E83EA6-DB66-4919-8E20-1490716AED41@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177429 On 2007, Sep 25, , at 23:23, Steve wrote: > bboyminn: > > Saying it was destroyed would be the smartest thing to do. > There is no point in defeating Harry, if it doesn't lead > to the Wand. And even if Harry is defeated at some point > in the future and the Wand takes on a new Master, it > still doesn't do any good, unless the person who defeated > Harry could get their hands on the Wand. > > Again, the danger is not in knowing Harry is the Master, > it is in people thinking they can get their hands on the > Wand in a way that allows them to become its true > Master. No Wands mean no advantage in attacking and > defeating Harry. > > It doesn't matter that people know Harry is the Master, > what matters is what people were told about the > disposition of the Wand. I'm saying, if they are smart, > they tell people it was destroyed. I think if Harry is really smart, instead of replacing the Wand where Voldemort got it, he should REALLY destroy it. Break it, burn it, bury it - do all three - with Ron and Hermione and maybe even Neville and Ginny as witnesses. If he really never intends to use it, then he should destroy it. Why keep it around for potential problems? Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel had the courage to destroy a powerful magical object; Harry has destroyed quite a few - and this one should be easy. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 26 14:13:47 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:13:47 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects Message-ID: <2543107.1190816027594.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177430 Prep0strus: >I agree with you about what her moral probably was supposed to be, and >even about your analysis of the characters and how they relate to the >fable characters... except that third brother. You say, 'live your own >life to the fullest, until you have to meet him'. That's nice, but >how does an invisibility cloak represent that? Sure, the third >brother does lead his own life - has kids, and faces death head >high... but what an invisibility cloak represents to me is nothing >like that at all. Bart: OK, there are several factors going into this (and I will admit that I may be putting in factors that JKR never intended). Now, one of the keys to the story of the Deathly Hallows is that it IS based on reality; the Hallows do exist, and were apparently created by 3 brothers. So the question is why the story has passed into folklore. (A side note: I think, because they did it mainly for laughs, Fred & George's talents were greatly unappreciated, and possibly underutilized. George, without Fred, may decide to use his artificing skills for more practical purposes.) I suspect the key is that the lesson is for the Wizarding World, and NOT the Muggle World (or the Real World). Because it's not about Death; it's about Muggles. The Wizards have three basic choices in dealing with the Muggle World: They can take over, they can create a common community, or they can hide. The Elder Wand symbolized taking over; the problem with it would be the constant revolution; Muggles are NOT House Elves. And, although Wizazds can protect themselves from physical damage, they CAN be surprised (as Harry can attest, having gone to the hospital several times for physical injuries). One wonders that no muggleborns thought to set up a bomb, say, "Voldemort", and run away as fast as possible. Or maybe they did. The stone was the second choice; as it brought the dead to life, it represented the Wizards joining the Muggles as neighbors rather than as rulers. But the difference between the Wizards and the Muggles would keep it from working, just as the stone could not bring the dead back to full life. So, the Wizards choose the route of being hidden from the Muggles (the invisibility cloak). This way, they can live out their lives undisturbed from the outside. As I implied, this is from asking the question, "What COULD it mean?" but I think I have a good fit. Bart From bartl at sprynet.com Wed Sep 26 14:19:52 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 10:19:52 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: OT: Technical Hint Message-ID: <17183340.1190816393984.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177431 Carol responds: >First, I hope you don't mind my leaving in the ???s (etc.) rather than >changing them to apostrophes. I thought you might want to see how the >post actually appears and consider using a different program or >posting directly from the list to avoid the problem. Bart: In whatever word processor is being used, turning "smart quotes" off will fix the problem. Bart From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 14:31:36 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 14:31:36 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709251950g5a710972k9d2c9c78ce69f1cd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177432 Debbie: > Dumbledore's note, which arrived with the Cloak in PS/SS, > admonished Harry to "use it well." On the whole, Harry did used > the Cloak well. He did not use it to commit crimes, or hide in > fear or shame. When he did use the Invisibility Cloak for foolish > pleasure (as in the PoA Hogsmeade trip), he was properly called on > the carpet for it. The Cloak served its purpose, as Harry was able > to keep Death from stealing him away while his mission remained > unfinished. However, just as in the tale, when he was ready for > Death, "he pulled off the Invisibility Cloak and stuffed it beneath > his robes, with his wand." Jen: That's a neat catch, Debbie. :) I thought of Harry as the third brother without ever noticing this moment. Xenophilius said this about the cloak: "None of you have ever seen such a thing. The possessor would be immeasureably rich, would he not?" (DH, chap. 21, p. 411) He assumes someone would either use the cloak for gain or perhaps sell the cloak if a person owned such an amazing item That thought never occurred to Harry because it's the only thing he has from his Dad and he's not motivated by money anyway. Although I think the first was the most important part since he constantly feels the loss of his family and the cloak is a connection. Alla: > Hmmm, do you think Dumbledore then knew for sure that at the > extreme need Stone will work OR he was not sure and just wanted to > be sure than when Harry tries to use it, it will be in the time of > extreme need? > Do you know what I am trying to ask? Do you think there is > limitations on when Resurrection stone will work and whether > Dumbledore knew that? > I mean, supposedly when he tried to put it on in HBP horcrux curse > hurt him, but if there was no horcrux curse on the ring, do you > think Stone would have worked for Dumbledore or his loved ones > already moved on and he would have been at the most in the position > of the second brother indeed? Jen: I thought Dumbledore put the Stone in the Snitch to keep Harry from using it like the Mirror: to call back the dead when he felt defeated at some point during his quest. If he had the Stone in his possession, Harry might have attempted to call back Dumbledore to explain things rather than Harry learning his own truth. Or called back his parents and Sirius, living in the past instead of facing what's real. Dumbledore learned from the fairy tale and his own experiences that just like the Mirror, a person can waste away thinking about the past and not what's in front of them. So I guess I'm saying Dumbledore knew that it's not exactly the item that doesn't work, but what that item can do to the user who wants something improper from it. Does that address your question or am I off on the wrong track?!? Alla: > Oh YES of course, it IS his reward and per fairy tale traditions I > have no problem with it, I am just not sure if I can call his > behaviour courageous necessarily, you know? > I mean, it is courageous in a sense that he decided not to live > forever and met Death when he felt his time is right, but I just do > not see any analogies, any possible RL analogy with human being > deciding for himself how long he can live, if that makes sense. Jen: You're right there, I don't see an analogy to RL literally as in any of us can choose the time. I read the RL analogy to be more that if a person meets life on life's terms instead of worrying about being stalked by death, such a person would be more likely to meet death the same way. Something like that, the words aren't coming to me. ;) Alla: > So, when third brother accepts death, it resonates with me, but when > he decides on his own how long he can live, it reads like .... wish > fullfilment in fairy tale? Jen: I can see that aspect. His wisdom resonated with me more than his courage probably. The courage was more about how he lived his life than the moment he accepted his death. It's hard not to see the parallel with Harry, the moment Harry decides to die and how it was courageous *because* he's scared. Since the third brother wasn't scared so much as accepting, I imagined him to be much older like Dumbledore and ready for death. So maybe that's the answer - he was old. Hehe. > Debbie > who would choose the Cloak over the wand or the stone Jen, who would choose the Stone. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 26 15:07:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:07:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177433 > va32h here: > > Well then Dumbledore is an idiot. Because Harry hasn't been afraid > of death since...EVER! In the very first book, when he is a mere 11 > year old, he rushed off to save the Philosopher's Stone because he > knew even then that dying was better than living under the influence > of evil. > > And every single year since then Harry has willingly risked death to > fight the good fight. Pippin: It's not a question of better to die fighting than live under the influence of evil, or of fleeing to death in order to escape pain. Harry had yet to do what Lily did -- step forward and say, "Take me instead." It's not something he would have done all along. As he says in PoA, "Why would I want to go looking for someone who wants to kill me?" (quoting from memory.) I don't know how different that is in RL from taking the risk of dying in a fight because I've never done either. But it's something that storytellers have always treated as different. It's like Spock going into the reactor knowing there's no chance he'll survive, as opposed to ducking phaser blasts in battle or rushing off to save Kirk. It had to be Harry's own idea, not something he did because Dumbledore had asked it of him. But Dumbledore hoped very much that Harry would do it. That is why, IMO, he radiates so much happiness when Harry pulls it off. > va32h here: > > I hear ya. But we're in mourning, and unlike in JKR's world, that > takes more than a few minutes. I loved this series, I cherished this > series, and its creator turned it into something ugly and repulsive. Pippin: I'm sorry you're so disappointed. It's funny, some of the people I thought would really like the book are disappointed, and some of those I thought would hate it don't. Me, I loved the book, and the more it's criticized, the more things I find in it to love. There's no lack of mourning rituals, all you have to do is go back and read them again. We have Fawkes's lament, Dumbledore's funeral and Dobby's burial. We don't need to have them over and over again for the sake of every character, at least I don't. It'd be like the RoTK movie, which ends when the ring is destroyed and ends when Aragorn gets married, and ends when Sam gets married, and then when Frodo goes over the sea...but wait, there's more! Clearly the HP books are not meant to be read in a linear fashion. You get to Snape's death scene and it seems like you're supposed to think whew, that's him out of the way, only to realize later that this is exactly what Snape was taking on when he went back to Voldemort. He knew it was not likely to end any other way. Not too painful, I hope. At least Harry's basilisk bite was not. You realize that dammit there's still an enigma: how much of Snape's ignorance was real and how much was feigned? But no matter, whether he chose ignorance or feigned it, he still did what he had chosen to do: give Voldemort only the information that Dumbledore wanted him to have. There was nothing to stop Snape from switching sides as soon as Dumbledore was gone, not even the hope of saving Harry for Lily's sake. There was nothing to stop him telling Voldemort he had learned that Harry had a soul fragment and mustn't be killed. Nothing, except his genuine regret for having become a DE in the first place. He faced the same temptation and turned aside. If that ain't redemption, there ain't no such animal. Snape gets his dying wish, he gets the one fully realized real-time death scene in the series *and* he gets the one elegy that is both fully knowledgeable and heartfelt. He even gets Dumbledore's glory: if friendship and bravery is what makes a wizard great, then one can say that Severus Snape was the greatest wizard that Harry had ever, or would ever, know. You could say of Snape's friendship with Lily what TH White said of Lancelot: he was a false friend, all the same, no one ever had a better one. Pippin From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 26 15:09:34 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:09:34 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177434 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: > > one of the first rules of writing is > > 'don't use a fancy word when a simple > > word will do'. Eggplant: > I don't think "helix" is a fancy word, if JKR's readers don't know > what it means then they certainly should, what with DNA and all. Geoff: The argument is not whether 'helix' is a fancy word but its usage. I really do not see why the readers should necessarily recognise 'helix' for what it is. If you ask people here in the UK to describe DNA, I suspect that many of them will use the word 'spiral'; I know a fair bit about helices because I am a mathematician but DNA and its double helix is not the usual stuff of casual conversation over coffee and biscuits. In a second context, folk who have had anything to do with machinery may think of helical gearing but to use it to describe rising steam or fumes seems unlikely - I think that fumes would spiral anyway. You still haven't answered my previous question as to why you would prefer Hermione to speak about "a characteristic helical pattern". If she, as the pedantic bookworm that she is, is satisfied with 'spirals', who are we mere mortals to argue with her? :-))) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Wed Sep 26 15:17:57 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:17:57 -0000 Subject: Analyzing Draco (Was: Re: Dark Book - Blood and Cruelty) In-Reply-To: <80f25c3a0709231607u75866b0dx67aa569843f2d123@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177435 > Jen: > I thought Crabbe meant he and Goyle (and now I'll add in Draco) > hung back during the evacuation. I guess they could've hung back > from going to the Great Hall... > Debbie: > I think it's conceivable that the three of them were there, but > that Draco was more or less hiding behind his friends. However, I > think it's more likely they didn't show up in the Great Hall in the > first place. Slughorn's earlier comments to McGonagall implied > that he was still terrified of defying DEs ("I'm not at all sure > whether this is wise, Minerva. he is bund to find a way in, you > know, and anyone who has tried to delay him will be in most > grievous peril"). Slughorn was the least likely of all the heads > of house to follow through to ensure that all his students went to > the Great Hall, especially sons of DEs who had demonstrated an > enthusiasm for the Cruciatus Curse. So, while canon doesn't tell > us, I'm assuming that MCG did not show up in the Great Hall. Jen: I think you're right, the three weren't in the Great Hall. Mostly because I can't picture Harry *not* noticing Draco; he and Draco are tied together throughout the series in such a way that they always seem aware of each other's presence. And the students aren't in the Great Hall for more than a few mintues before Voldemort interrupts (basing that on the fact that when the chapter opens McGonagall is just starting her speech about the evacuation and answers a couple of questions before LV speaks). I was more thinking of other teachers not noticing rather than Slughorn, whom I agree wouldn't have stopped them at that point. Debbie: > Heh, if Draco had been standing by when Voldy killed him I'd bet > he'd have turned over a mostly different set of memories, full of > conversations with Dumbledore on how to protect Draco in addition > to the ones he showed Harry. Jen: Argh, why couldn't we get those too?! I particularly want to know if Snape was as reluctant a DE as Draco was from early on, or if he embraced it until the moment he discovered Lily was going to be targeted. > Debbie: > I'm with you here, although if Harry is the prey I'm not sure how > the diadem will distract them. But for the life of me I can't > figure out what Draco was going to say about the diadem. I've > checked the canon and there's nothing to suggest he knew that Harry > was looking for anything, so he must have made something up. > > "'Potter came in here to get it,' said Malfoy with ill-disguised > impatience at the slow-wittedness of his colleagues, 'so that must > mean -- '" > > (a) . . . that it's really powerful and we should find it and use it? > (b) . . . that the Dark Lord would want it, and bringing it to him > would cover us in glory? > (c) . . . that if Potter wants it, we should find and destroy it > immediately? Jen: I'll take door B, attempting to appeal to Crabbe's desire for glory by suggesting there was something *additional* they could bring to the Dark Lord to earn his favor along with Potter. Not that Draco really wants to take either to Voldemort, but perhaps he can keep Crabbe from destroying the diadem with all the spells he's blasting around. Draco doesn't know what it is or how it's protected. Btw, do others think there were protections on it or that LV thought the room was enough? > Debbie: > Very true. What really strikes me about Draco in DH as a whole and > this scene in particular is the challenge he faced growing into his > new role as an opponent of the DEs. I believe, as you suggest, > that the correct parallel is Snape. Having decided he doesn't want > the DE life, he continues to have to live it outwardly, one of the > toughest jobs ever. He's clearly not as good at it as Snape, > because unlike Snape, Draco's not much of an actor. He wears his > heart on his sleeve always... > As it turns out, Draco is a fool who loves, and this is the biggest > surprise of DH. Draco wasn't redeemed because he was a coward, but > because, like Snape, he had the capacity to love. Jen: Snape lost so much more that it makes sense he could compartmentalize his emotions better and become a more convincing actor. It appealed to me that Draco retained the quality of wearing his heart on his sleeve, and that Dumbledore and Snape gave up so much to help him reach that point instead of the two of them only helping Harry. From va32h at comcast.net Wed Sep 26 15:24:35 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:24:35 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177436 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > It's not a question of better to die fighting than live under the influence > of evil, or of fleeing to death in order to escape pain. Harry had yet to do > what Lily did -- step forward and say, "Take me instead." It's not something > he would have done all along. As he says in PoA, "Why would I > want to go looking for someone who wants to kill me?" (quoting > from memory.) > > I don't know how different that is in RL from taking the risk of dying > in a fight because I've never done either. But it's something that > storytellers have always treated as different. It's like Spock going into > the reactor knowing there's no chance he'll survive, as opposed > to ducking phaser blasts in battle or rushing off to save Kirk. > > It had to be Harry's own idea, not something he did > because Dumbledore had asked it of him. But Dumbledore hoped > very much that Harry would do it. That is why, IMO, he radiates > so much happiness when Harry pulls it off. va32h: But Harry *did* go looking for someone who (he thought) was trying to kill him. Harry *did* go after Sirius. And Harry already had the revelation that there is a difference between being "dragged into an arena and walking in with your head held high" (also quoting from memory). Harry had that revelation *in front of* Dumbledore, in HBP, and Harry understands that it's the way his parents died. And I just don't see how it's Harry's idea and not something Dumbledore asked of him, because as soon as Harry sees Dumbledore tell Snape that it's what he (Harry) has to do, that's it - there's not a split second of internal struggle. Harry accepts Dumbledore's word as gospel. Dumbledore said he had to die, so by golly, he's gonna go off and die. And even after basking in Dumbledore's glow in King's Cross, Harry has to go back to DD yet again, to seek DD's approval yet again, via the portrait. That's just - ugh. > Pippin: > I'm sorry you're so disappointed. It's funny, some of the people I thought > would really like the book are disappointed, and some of those I > thought would hate it don't. > > Me, I loved the book, and the more it's criticized, the more things > I find in it to love. There's no lack of mourning rituals, all you have to > do is go back and read them again. We have Fawkes's > lament, Dumbledore's funeral and Dobby's burial. We don't need to > have them over and over again for the sake of every character, at least I > don't. It'd be like the RoTK movie, which ends when the ring is destroyed > and ends when Aragorn gets married, and ends when Sam gets > married, and then when Frodo goes over the sea...but wait, there's more! va32h: I have no knowledge of anything regarding Lord of the Rings. Never seen a film or read one of the books. I'm not talking about mourning within the series - but specifically in terms of DH, there is no mourning for a character whose death actually affects people. Dobby's death is sad, sure, but there's no Mrs. Dobby to worry about how she's going to pay the bills, or little Dobbies having to ponder a life without daddy. It's an "easy" mourning because the characters can just say (essentially) "bummer" and go on about their business. Dealing with Fred's death, or Lupin's death would actually require some sort of effort to you know, think about how that loss affects the other characters and how that would be conveyed in the story. But JKR just takes the easy (lazy) way out yet again. Pippin: > Clearly the HP books are not meant to be read in a linear fashion. va32h: Heavens no, or the inconsistencies and mistakes will drive you crazy! From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 15:36:15 2007 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 15:36:15 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make)/Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177437 Laura wrote: > > > > > > > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > > > > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > > > > before... va32h: > > but as often as not "said" really is the most > appropriate > > word. > > Magpie: > Oh my-there is absolutely *nothing* wrong with using the word said. > On the contrary, it's what the author *should* use most of the time. Ceridwen: Having read books on writing by various successful authors, like John Gardner and Stephen King, "said" is almost always the perfect word. It slides under a reader's radar, causing people not to notice that the words "he said/she said" were even there. Alternatives should be used sparingly, to signal some sort of change or problem ("he gasped" or "she cried"). This change signals something to the reader, that the character is upset or happy or alarmed, so there is something different going on in the text. Rowling uses a lot of -ly words (shakily, angrily) when describing speech, which draws attention to the character's disposition (he said snarkily/she said worriedly). I've seen where people criticize this, since she could have used "he snapped" or "she fretted", or described behavior (he turned abruptly and stalked off/she raised a trembling hand to her mouth). Ceridwen. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 16:44:13 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:44:13 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: <2543107.1190816027594.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177438 Well, thanks for all the interesting responses! Got to read a lot of different thoughts, some of which I'd like to comment on... lizzyben: But I think it really comes back to JKR's odd ideas about ambition. She considers ambition & cunning to be "evil" & Slytherinish; traits that lead to a desire for power & tyranny. The polar opposite of ambition & accomplishment is - invisibility. That's why it's a "good thing" that Harry gives up assertive power (the Wand), and accepts passive invisibility (the Cloak). Of course, JKR later tells us that all the heroes were wildly successful in their careers. But not because they really wanted to be!! It's weird, but if you accept that ambition=evil, the motif works better. It's not that ambition is a "good" Slytherin trait - it's a Slytherin trait because it's "bad" in JKR's world. Prep0strus: Not sure I WANT to accept this thesis, but it makes a lot of sense. A lot of people responded with what they think the moral is - that the third brother was willing to face death fairly, not try to cheat him, so he won. And that's all well and good, I just think an invisibility cloak is a really weird way to represent that. You make an attempt to explain why invisibility is used to represent something good in JKR's world, and... it makes a lot of sense. I mean, I agree with JKR that ambition (especially the unchecked, 'do anything to get what you want kind) is not good - and certainly not equal to the other traits, but to have 'becoming invisible' be the ultimate good choice one can make in a fable is a very strange metaphor. zgirnius: I think that Death did not deliberately fail to deliver a working device with the Stone. Rather, what the brother asked for is *impossible*. The dead who are not ghosts have moved on to their 'next great adventure' and cannot truly be called back, certainly not to live life again. The Stone brought a shade of the brother's fiancee back, but she was not happy, and could not make him happy, but this was his fault for requesting the impossible. Prep0strus: I mean, sure, I suppose, but that kind of sucks. He probably thought death had power over these things. Death could have been like, 'nope, can't do that one'. Yes, it's a fable, but it just strikes me as odd that his gift does not work as requested, and the others do. Debbie: Invisibility has many positive connotations as well. It recalls the anonymous benefactor of Scripture, in contrast to the one who makes a big show of his good works. His sole reward was public awareness of his deed, whereas the first would be rewarded in heaven. If you do something for fame or glory, you will have your full reward right away. However, if you live your life justly and honestly, but quietly, you will be able to meet Death as an equal, without fear. Harry never felt comfortable with his fame, and the Invisibility Cloak allowed him to accomplish much good he could not have achieved in public. Prep0strus: I suppose. I mean, it is true that Harry uses the cloak well. All I know is that if I were given various superpowers, I would know what to do with them. And maybe it's me, and my flawed mind, but if I were given an invisibility cloak, I think I would wind up spending more time fighting temptation to do things I shouldn't do with the cloak than I would be able to actually think of things that I could do with it to be useful. It all depends on your own reading, but to me, invisibility is associated with shame or fear more than other attributes - certainly not courage or responsibility, which JKR appears to stress in the rest of the story. Bart: So, the Wizards choose the route of being hidden from the Muggles (the invisibility cloak). This way, they can live out their lives undisturbed from the outside. As I implied, this is from asking the question, "What COULD it mean?" but I think I have a good fit. Prep0strus: I doubt this is what she actually meant to do, but it certainly is an interesting interpretation that includes the invisibility cloak as a viable metaphor. Still, once taken away from the 'story within a story', and then applied from the Harry Potter world to our world, invisibility still remains to me a strange choice to be admired - it's like, the opposite of the metaphors implied by The Invisibles, and other stories where it is stressed that to be unique is good, to be special is good, and we do not all need to be the same, mediocre, unnoticed. With glorifying invisibility, even within the context of hiding from muggles, I think it is a pointed message of, 'Don't stand out!' I really like fables and fairy tales and thought it was cool that JKR included one, especially as it then related to their actual world. But I don't think she executed it wonderfully, and I especially found the metaphor of the cloak to be lacking - it really just makes me wonder whether it was in her mind the entire time, or she thought of the story long after incorporating the cloak and had to jam it in some way. ~Prep0strus(Adam) From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Wed Sep 26 17:00:37 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:00:37 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177439 "Steve" wrote: > Saying it [the Elder Wand] was > destroyed would be the smartest > thing to do. The comments Dumbledore made concerning the destruction of Harry's Phoenix wand would indicate that destroying a wand as powerful as the Elder Wand would be difficult. But for me there is a more serious problem; too many fantasy and science fiction stories end with the amazing alien planet being blown up, the land of the Dinosaurs getting covered in lava, the time machine getting hit by a train, and Dr. Frankenstein's lab notebook being thrown into the fire. I suppose writers do that because they think readers want to preserve the Status Quo, but I'm not that crazy about the Status Quo and I just think it's a poor way to end a story. The Potter series has already destroyed enough amazing magical objects thank you very much; there is no need to add the Elder Wand to the list. > 'Spiral' is a lot more simple and > straight forward that 'Helix'. It is also incorrect, the steam could not be rising in a spiral. A spiral is 2 dimensional, a Helix is 3. And far from being "fancy" helix has one fewer letter than spiral. "Geoff Bannister" Write: > I know a fair bit about helices because > I am a mathematician I was a math major. > DNA and its double helix is not the > usual stuff of casual conversation > over coffee and biscuits. And if JKR had the opportunity to do a little something to help change that sorry fact then she should have done so. I'm not saying this spiral business is earth shattering or anything, its just a little thing that nags at me for some reason. Eggplant From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 17:50:17 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:50:17 -0000 Subject: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177440 > va32h: > > But Harry *did* go looking for someone who (he thought) was trying to > kill him. Harry *did* go after Sirius. Alla: But was he going there, **knowing** that he will go to Voldemort and telling him basically "take me instead"? Was he going there to **die** without fight? NOT to fight knowing that he may die, but going to die without fight. I agree with Pippin, I think what happened in DH was indeed different. IMO of course. > And Harry already had the revelation that there is a difference > between being "dragged into an arena and walking in with your head > held high" (also quoting from memory). Harry had that revelation > *in front of* Dumbledore, in HBP, and Harry understands that it's the > way his parents died. Alla: Yes, Harry thinks of it and it is still thought of going to fight, knowing that he may die, NOT to sacrifice himself without fight, no? > > Pippin: > > I'm sorry you're so disappointed. It's funny, some of the people I > thought > > would really like the book are disappointed, and some of those I > > thought would hate it don't. > > > > Me, I loved the book, and the more it's criticized, the more things > > I find in it to love. There's no lack of mourning rituals, all you > have to > > do is go back and read them again. Alla: Oh Pippin it is funny isn't it? Me too. > va32h: > Dealing with Fred's death, or > Lupin's death would actually require some sort of effort to you know, > think about how that loss affects the other characters and how that > would be conveyed in the story. But JKR just takes the easy (lazy) > way out yet again. Alla: Lazy way out? Maybe just the way how it is supposed to work within the story? IMO of course. I do not know, I always thought that the point of multiple deaths without spending too much time on mourning rituals was just that - to show senselessness of multiple deaths during the war. I personally **loved** how we did not get the death scenes for Lupin and Tonks for example. Majority of people during the war, be it civilians or soldiers die like that, do they not? Meaning that they do not get to perform spectacular acts of heroism in a sense that everybody got to witness them. They just die fighting heroically. And same with mourning rituals for me. Don't you think that if she should show them for Lupin and Tonks she should show them for all 50 soldiers and civilians who fallen in the Battle of Hogwarts? I mean, it is obvious to me that they would be properly buried and mourned and one scene when Harry sees them lying there made me cry more than long ritual would have, I think. And often even body is not possible to find, no? Like with Sirius? Oy, I agree with Pippin - I find more and more to love about this book. JMO, Alla From prep0strus at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 17:55:06 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 17:55:06 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177441 Again, thanks for the responses. Definitely stuff to think on. Carol: With regard to Draco, being interested in him as a character and identifying with him are two different things. Draco has a moment or two when we can identify with him if we're honest with ourselves. Prep0strus: This is very true. I will say, that for the most part, I think Draco is the character I identified with LEAST As a character, (and i'm including the Dursleys and Voldemorte in that statement). I'm sure if I really thought about it I could find some time where I did... but mostly, I REALLY didn't like him. But, especially after HBP, I was VERY interested in him. You mention later in your post how DH was disappointing for some and realistic for others... perhaps it was both for me. I was hoping for something realistic that wasn't disappointing, maybe. I never expected him to 'replace' Ron in any way - not with Hermione, or Harry. And I never expected him and Harry to become best buds. But I was surprised that Draco never really acknowledges his mistakes, or that he never does anything to help the 'good' side. I always thought he and harry would have a dislike for each other, but... i wanted more from DH. HBP was so focused on Draco - for me, he was the main focus of the story, more than Snape, more in many ways than Harry. It really felt like she was going somewhere with him, and then in DH... that story drifts away. Maybe it's realistic. Maybe that's how things often happen. but it was immensely unsatisfying. Carol: Draco will never be brave (in marked contrast to Snape), but at least he has no relish for the life of a Death Eater, for murder and torture and coercion. Prep0strus: Boy, is that true. He's a coward, through and through, and I often wonder if it is some sense of morality that keeps him from becoming more of a Death Eater, or simply cowardice and fear. Like Lucius, I think he just wants to be a slimy rich racist, content to live his own life, spew filth, and not get his hands dirty. There are moments when he wanted some glory, and moments where care for his friend overwhelmed his own fear, but for the most part, I don't wind up seeing anything to admire in him, because I think it is as valid an interpretation, with the series finished now, that he did not become fully evil because he's a wuss as much as it is that he did not because he has good in him. Carol: I'm not arguing for my interpretation. I'm only trying to show why I consider Draco and his character arc, especially in HBP and DH, to be interesting and significant, not only for Draco himself and for Slytherin House, for which he is the chief representative of his generation, but for Harry as he gains understanding and develops compassion for a boy he once despised. Prep0strus: I think this is why I'm so disappointed in JKR. He is the chief representative of his generation. He's the chief possibility of redemption and change. Snape never interested me as much because it was done. I was pretty sure he was 'good' and had been since before the series started. Whatever happened, happened in the past. Draco was this generation's chance to make a mistake and redeem that mistake. He was everything we could loathe, but also, everything that could possibly be turned around - and perhaps before some of the more grievous mistakes Snape made before he turned. and instead... draco's story goes nowhere. I see no reason to think he wouldn't have remained 'loyal' to Voldemorte if he had won. Draco was not good, not wholeheartedly evil - he was nothing but a coward. Harry certainly does gain understanding and compassion - even as I did a little in HBP. But after DH, I'm left unfulfilled. Like Slytherin, Draco is left as a remnant of something worse... not fully bad, but certainly not good. Mostly just dormant, probably ready to do something wrong if it advances him and doesn't cost him too much or involve too risk. He's not an impetuous child anymore, but I don't see that he's not any less selfish or cowardly... just a little more mature. And, in the end, that makes him less interesting to me. I don't see change in him. And I don't even think his flaws are that interesting. Cowardice and selfishness are something that can be seen any day of the week. I wanted more from Draco. Magpie: Well, I can't speak up for identifying with him if by that you mean there are ways that I look at Draco and say, "Yup, that's just what I would do/say" or "He's cool!" I have heard plenty of people who identify with him because they did have some of his worse qualities when they were younger and grew out of them (sometimes they were raised by racists etc.). Prep0strus: That's a really interesting point. I think, for them (not that it's JKR's duty to make little moral statements, even though she does) it might have been nice to see Draco grow up a little or recant some of his beliefs. I see nothing in the story that makes me think he does not still harbor a superior attitude and resentment toward Muggleborns, or even that he thinks the basic ideals of the Voldemorte regime are wrong. he just doesn't want to have to act on it himself. Laziness and cowardice aside, seeing him grow out of being a little bigot I think would make him more relatable as someone raise wrong who was able to overcome that. Magpie: But for me it's not so much identifying with him but he's my favorite character because he has the most compelling issues for me. I think he's in a greatly difficult situation in canon--even before it happens you can see it's coming when Voldemort returns. That he's not an admirable person to begin with just adds to his trouble. Nothing ever goes right for him, but I can see certain things that he cares about that aren't just stupid and evil. It's not a subversive reading, as far as I can see. I mean, one might as well ask JKR why she felt that way, since she gave him a somewhat sympathetic storyline in HBP especially. I doubt she felt badly about herself for feeling sorry for him and creating him and not killing him off for his sins. Prep0strus: I certainly don't think he should have been killed off... but I do think JKR gave him that sympathetic storyline, and then bailed on it. I don't know what that means at all. To me, it was really dropping the ball, and I don't know what to make of it. My feelings for Draco at the end of DH are very different from how I thought they'd be looking ahead when I had finished HBP. He was compelling at that point, but the way his storyline ended... I no longer cared. He didn't seem to have moral issues, because I never saw him face them. I know that it is harry's story, and just because we did not really see Draco confronting them, does not mean it didn't happen. And I do think it's a valid interpretation. But I think Draco simply being a selfish cowardly git is also a valid interpretation. I wanted a little more from JKR, and not given that, I no longer find him likable OR interesting. zgirnius: I have a great deal of difficulty holding him responsible for his 'genocidal' views. With his family background, I imagine he learned these ideas from babyhood, and associates loyalty to these ideas and Voldemort, the leader of the movement, with loyalty to his parents. (A loyalty he has always exhibited, and which I find a positive trait as well). That others with similar backgrounds made different choices as kids does not impress me as a reason to dislike Draco. Most important, however, is that when he must act on these beliefs, he suddenly finds that he does not really want to. Which tells me that despite his lip service to, and outward pride in, these beliefs, he has no interest in genocide. Prep0strus: This is true, and yet also doesn't make me want to like him, either. Just because he cannot follow through on performing a gruesome act himself (and I maintain, if he had succeeded from afar with a potion or item, as he tried to, he would have still been proud and full of bravado) does not make him admirable. He still supports these actions as done by other people. He is, primarily, a coward. he does not want to have to face ANYTHING. I am happy he was not able to kill dumbledore, but his support of the basilisk, of his parents... not all evil is done simply by the people who do the deeds. And I don't know that he wouldn't do them if he didn't have to look the person in the face while doing it. Maybe it makes him less of a sociopath than voldemorte, but I don't think it makes him a good person. zgirnius: It's been said before (by me among others), but Draco is the Wile E. Coyote of the wizarding world. I always loved old Wile E. better than that obnoxious Roadrunner, and always hoped for an episode in which he might, for a change, win in a cartoon way. (Rowling even wrote me the scene in HBP, though I was too worried about Harry being *gasp* killed to fully appreciate it). Prep0strus: Yeah, this is funny and interesting - but I do think Draco wins smaller battles all the time (or, at least, he thinks he does). He does get to be on the Quidditch team with his brooms, he does get special treatment when 'recovering' from the buckbeak episode, he does stomp harry down. There are times he watches Harry get punished when he gets away, and plenty of times he just gets to be a rich kid doing his thing. he's not the consummate loser that the coyote is. It's just that we, as the audience, relish when he does lose, because he 'deserves' it. Really, in the big picture, in the end, he wins. Is there another character that wins a happy ending that is so undeserved? Perhaps Lucius. But what does Draco lose? A friend, who kills himself, when attempting to murder someone. And he winds up with the same happy ending - he's at the train - he has a wife, a kid, he's still rich. His parents and family unit (unlike almost everyone else's) remain alive and and intact. Harry has lost both his parents, his godfather, two other father figures, multiple friends... all the 'good guys' lose so much, and fight so hard, to have their 'happily ever after'. Draco does nothing to earn it. The best things people manage to say about him are that he didn't want his friends to die (other would be murderers) and that there were times he could have been more evil, and wasn't. But throughout the books he supports the side of evil, and even when he cannot follow through, he does not help the side of good at all. Even in the final battle he's trying to say 'i'm one of you!' and if the DE had listened, who knows what he'd be doing. Though, probably nothing - the big coward. and yet, he's a big winner at the end - just as much as Harry. He gets the reward Harry has wanted his whole life, and hasn't done a thing to earn it. I think Draco has his roadrunner and eats it too. zgirnius: I could, in my own view, be describing Sirius Black in the above paragraph (saving the reference to love of parents, naturally). Oddly enough, there seems to be a reader or two who identifies with this character. Oh, now I am even more happy I attempted a parallel with Sirius! We know Sirius would have risked death for James, and we also know what he would do if, say, the situation were different and it was Severus who was in danger. (Nothing. Exactly what he *did* do when it was). Prep0strus: I love how you can bring in an example to support your point, and I can completely disagree with you - and yet still love the example, but think that it supports my point! I think Sirius and Draco have a lot in common - as well as with Ron, which I've said before. these pureblooded wizards, raised in families unhit by tragedy... they do have a lot in common. There is a stubbornness, an arrogance, a set worldview. But there are also fundamental differences. Sirius and Ron are not 'the hero' (more on that below), but they are also not the villain. they are the sidekicks. Draco tries to be the villain, pretty much fails, but winds up being... the villain's sidekick. certainly not the hero's sidekick. Sirius is a great example because his upbringing was so similar to Draco's - and this has been discussed ad infinitum, but my opinion is that he made a fundamentally different choice. he is still amazingly flawed - arrogant and reckless and petty. but he is brave where draco is cowardly, strong where draco is weak, and righteous where draco supports bigotry and evil. Sirius fights for the right side, not just for his friends, though they are important, and he risks his life and dies for them. And what he did with Severus, again, discussed ad nauseum... is he opened a door. and Severus, with hubris and schadenfreude ran through it. Draco enchants necklaces and makes poison to try to kill. These are fundamentally different. zgirnius: So are you saying that he would need to be the hero to be redeemed? And yet, you say you expected him to be redeemed? It seems to me that after just barely avoiding becoming a murderer in HBP, for Draco to be shown as a person with an aversion to torture and murder with the courage to risk his life for a friend and some desire to get way from/interfere with Voldemort (his refusal to indetify Ron and Hermione), is a huge step up. Prep0strus: No, I don't think he'd have to be the hero, exactly. Like I said, Ron also isn't the hero. But... well, harry is THE hero. and then there are all those who fight alongside him. and then there are those who sit out of in and speak up for the good guys, then there are those who sit out of it and say nothing, then there are those who sit out and support evil, then there are those who actively support evil, and then there are true villains. Draco was somewhere between those who sit out and support evil and those who actively support evil. The latter is what Severus was. It takes more for redemption if you were on the evil side of the spectrum than to even return to the middle. It takes repentance, and likely action. I see no evidence that Draco even repented, no less took action on the side of good. I think he realized he didn't want to actively support evil - but I think he would have been perfectly fine sitting it out and talking about mudbloods and enjoying his money. Again, I don't think that caring for a friend - a murderous, evil friend - is the same as being a good person. I don't think 'the bad guys' have to have no ability to have real relationships. It doesn't change the way Draco sees the rest of the world. I see Draco's actions as cowardice, not a change of heart. that can be interpreted different ways, validly, but to me, yes, he would have to be a little of the hero in order to be redeemed. Never as selfless or brave as harry, but he should show something. > Prep0strus(earlier): > I don't want to kill > him either, exactly - just smack some sense into him. zgirnius: I see no need, Rowling did a fine job of it for me. Prep0strus: And for me, she really didn't. The coyote and roadrunner metaphor... some admire his perseverance. I lambaste his stupidity. It's admirable in some way to do the same stupid thing over and over again, for the wrong reasons? and, it all turns out ok for our coyote friend. Gets the family, and maybe he stops chasing after the roadrunner. It's like one day he gave up, and said, ok, I guess i'm not gonna catch the roadrunner, and then that is the most wonderful thing he ever did. he went off, had a life, and if the roadrunner got hit by a bus he's probably laugh about it, but it's not his problem anymore. he stopped being so stupid, but he didn't get any nicer. I don't think Draco gets sense smacked into him, because he doesn't really lose very much. And we never see his internal conflict. He winds up at the end a person who I think would do whatever is best for him at least risk. I don't think he's learned a lesson a bigotry or even evil. i think he's learned something about death, and how it is not to be taken lightly... but more I think he learned that he doesn't want to get his hands dirty. Not the lesson i was hoping for after finishing HBP, and certainly not enough to make me forgive the years of inflicting pain on others for his own amusement. ~Adam (prep0strus) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 18:15:23 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:15:23 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177442 Carol earlier: > > > Soul bits don't go to some equivalent of King's Cross when they are released from the Horcrux that holds them. According to Hermione, > our resident expert on the subject, "a Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being. . . . [W]hatever happens to your body, your soul will survive, untouched. But it's the other way around with a Horcrux. The fragment inside it depends on its container, its enchanted body. It can't exist without it" (104). > > > Dana: > Your explanation is very well constructed but I do not agree with your interpretation. > > If you die then your soul goes to the afterlife in JKR's world, while your body remains behind (well at least in most cases unless you're killed by drapery) and thus every independent piece of LV's soul goes to this in between stage just as every other soul. They can't exist in the living world without their casings but that is not to say that these soul pieces stop existing in themselves in essence because otherwise LV's conscious soul would have stopped to exit when the spell backfired in GH but it didn't because his other soul pieces kept him from moving on. > > They go to the abyss like any other soul but they are so maimed that > they are no longer able to go beyond this shadowy stage, they no > longer have any choice like "normal" souls do. So in a sense they > will remain between the world of the living and the death. LV's soul > piece that we saw can't stand up and take the train so to speak and > it can't return to the land of the living as a ghost either. So they > will just exist in this abyss for eternity. > > What we saw WAS the piece of soul attached to Harry and in essence DD > was right as this soul piece was destroyed because it no longer has a > choice to do anything from that moment on. LV's conscious soul can no > longer depend on it for his survival and on its own it can't move on > to the next stage of death or return to the world of the living. > > Only true remorse could have connected LV's conscious soul piece to > the lost pieces making it whole enough for him to move beyond that > shadowy stage and take the train to the beyond and thus have a chance > to live whole again in the afterlife. Because he was incapable of > doing so, every single soul piece he split off, will independently > live within this abyss forever with no chance to either move back > (ghost) or move forward (afterlife). > > So in short, to me, the piece of soul we saw in Harry's vision *was* > the soul piece that had resided in Harry for all those years but it > could not longer perform its duty as horcrux and thus essentially it > was destroyed but not non-existent in the deeper meaning of death (or > destruction). > > > JMHO > > Dana > Carol responds: I used to think something similar, that the soul bits from the Horcruxes would go to the afterlife when the Horcrux container was destroyed, but that's not the implication I get from Dumbledore's or Hermione's words. Clearly, the thing under the bench is not the destroyed soul bit (see upthread). And if your interpretation were correct, there would be eight flayed babies (one for each piece of Voldie's soul, including the one within himself) lying around waiting to be reunited in whatever Voldie's equivalent of King's Cross is. In my view, there's only one baby, the soul that was in Voldie himself, which became Vapor!mort, then was inside Fetal!mort and then, "however maimed, reside[d] in his regenerate body" (DD to Harry, HBP Am. ed. 503), and, after his death, will lie forever untouched and beyond comfort or restoration unless he feels remorse, and even then cannot be whole because the Horcrux soul bits have been destroyed because it has been mutilated beyond the realms of what we might call 'usual evil'" (502). DD says (and this quote supports your point that destroying the Horcruxes would not in itself kill Voldemort), "Without his Horcruxes, Voldemort will be a mortal man with a maimed and diminished soul. Never forget, though, that while his soul may be damaged beyond repair, his brain and magical powers remain intact. It will take uncommon skill and power to kill a wizard like Voldemort even without his Horcruxes" (HBP 508-09). So, destroying the Horcruxes makes Voldie mortal but does not kill him. (We agree on that point.) But making the Horcruxes has mutilated Voldie's soul to the extent that it may be damaged beyond repair, and, IMO, cannot be fully restored even by remorse after the soul bits have been destroyed. What makes me think they were utterly destroyed and not just waiting beyond the Veil or at the Voldie equivalent of King's Cross to rejoin him? First, we saw only the one baby, with no sign of any stray soul bits from the five destroyed Horcruxes (diary, ring, locket, cup, diadem). DD specifically said that the thing under the bench was not the soul bit from the scar, which had been "destroyed" (DH Am. ed. 708). Harry says later that he has seen what Voldie will become if he doesn't show remorse (741), which can only refer to the maimed child under the bench. Also, Hermione had said earlier that while the soul within a human being is immortal, a soul bit in a Horcrux "can't exist" outside its enchanted container (104). It depends on its container for survival. Without the container, it dies. Harry uses the word "died" to describe what happened to the diary (104), and we see Memory!Tom die in CoS. Nagini literally dies; the diary and tiara bleed; the locket screams. But the soul bit in these destroyed containers is not the soul within a human being, which "will survive, untouched" no matter what happens to the body (Hermione, 104). "A Horcrux is the complete opposite of a human being," and once its container is destroyed, it ceases to exist. The scar, of course, is not a deliberately created container, but "killing" Harry with an AK destroys the soul bit in it just as effectively as stabbing the diary with a Basilisk fang destroys that soul bit. In fact, if it weren't for the drop of blood that Voldie shares with Harry, preventing Harry from dying while Voldie lives, Harry, the seventh Horcrux's container, *would* have died. Instead, only the soul bit is killed. Remorse would perhaps have enabled the fragments that had not been made into Horcruxes to come together (the ones from murders not used to create Horcruxes), reducing Voldie's eternal suffering (otherwise, remorse is rather pointless once the Horcruxes have been destroyed), but the destroyed soul bits are apparently no longer immortal. Based on Hermione's words, they cease to be immortal once they're placed inside an enchanted object (or enter a living person, becoming an accidental Horcrux, but Hermione doesn't know that). They make the Horcrux creator "as close to immortal as any man can be" (HBP 502) while they anchor his soul to earth, but they themselves can be destroyed, which is why Voldie hid his Horcruxes so carefully and placed curses and other protections on them. Anyway, the words "destroyed," "can't exist," "can't survive" all suggest that soul bits do not "go to the abyss like any other living soul." Both Hermione and DD testify that once a soul bit has no container to return to because that container has been magically destroyed (poisoned/burned/AK'd), the soul bit itself ceases to exist. Through his own actions, combined with the destruction of the Horcruxes, Voldemort is left with only 1/8 of a soul (JKR's math) for all eternity. To me, the infantile state of his remaining soul as seen or envisioned by Harry suggests its incompleteness. It can never grow to maturity; it will always remain stunted and undeveloped, just as it will always remain maimed because he maimed it himself and nothing but his own remorse can help him. Compassion serves no purpose and might even do more harm than good given the pain that Voldemort feels when he's touched by Harry's loving soul in the MoM. But to return to the point, DD has made it clear that the creature under the bench is not the soul bit, which has been destroyed, and Harry interprets the creature as Voldie's future state if he doesn't repent. As we're offered no alternative interpretation (and Harry is becoming wiser and more perceptive as the book nears its end), I see no reason not to accept his interpretation, especially as the other evidence I've cited also supports that interpretation. Carol, for whom the whole point of the flayed baby is its representation of the Voldie soul's future state, a point that could not be made if the baby were the destroyed soul bit From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 26 18:49:38 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 18:49:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177443 > va32h: > > But Harry *did* go looking for someone who (he thought) was trying to > kill him. Harry *did* go after Sirius. Pippin: Um, he went after a black dog. He had no idea it was Sirius. When he went to the MoM, he refused to believe it was a trap and Voldemort would be ready for him. He tried to get the Order to go first and was highly relieved when they finally showed up. Va32h > And Harry already had the revelation that there is a difference > between being "dragged into an arena and walking in with your head > held high" (also quoting from memory). Harry had that revelation > *in front of* Dumbledore, in HBP, and Harry understands that it's the > way his parents died. Pippin: There is no one way his parents died. Harry's revelation in DH is that Lily's death was different than James's, as JKR already hinted in interviews. Compare the "arena" metaphor with Snape's "pig for slaughter." There's no glory awaiting what Harry does in DH. No living person may ever care what he did or why he did it. Va32h: > And I just don't see how it's Harry's idea and not something > Dumbledore asked of him, because as soon as Harry sees Dumbledore > tell Snape that it's what he (Harry) has to do, that's it - there's > not a split second of internal struggle. Harry accepts Dumbledore's > word as gospel. Dumbledore said he had to die, so by golly, he's > gonna go off and die. Pippin: I seem to remember a lot of internal struggle, with Harry realizing how much he really doesn't want to do this. But as for accepting the facts as Dumbledore states them, who is he going to argue with? Snape's dead, and portrait!Dumbledore is absent. Dumbledore does not put it to Snape that Harry has to die without a fight. Harry decides that. He could far more easily have drawn his wand, yelled, "This one's for Sirius!" and charged. He'd still have been AK'd and the horcrux would still have been destroyed. Harry would still have been held to life by his mother's blood. But he would not have been able to invoke the protection that saved Neville and The Sorting Hat. Va32h > And even after basking in Dumbledore's glow in King's Cross, Harry > has to go back to DD yet again, to seek DD's approval yet again, via > the portrait. That's just - ugh. Pippin: What's wrong with asking Dumbledore's approval for laying the wand back to rest in his tomb? Without that it would feel like another desecration. BTW, I don't suppose reverence for Dumbledore will be the only thing protecting the EW. Anybody who wants to take mastery of the wand from Harry is going to have to figure out where the wand is hidden, defeat Harry, and get to the wand before somebody defeats him. I imagine Hermione could make that last bit a tall order. > va32h: > > I'm not talking about mourning within the series - but specifically > in terms of DH, there is no mourning for a character whose death > actually affects people. Pippin: DH by itself is imcomplete. If JKR could say everything she wanted to say with DH she wouldn't have needed to write six other books along with it. That's what I mean about reading in a non-linear way. We've experienced with Harry the devastation of Cedric's death, and we saw how that affected Ced's parents. We've learned that for Mrs. Black there was no getting over losing her sons, and we've seen to what lengths Narcissa will go to try to save Draco. I think we've seen an awful lot about how death affects people. This is the book where the last enemy, death, is defeated. Luna's simple faith that all she lost will be returned to her in the end is confirmed, for Harry anyway. I don't particularly share that belief, but this is JKR's universe, and I'm willing to believe it in the context of HP. Mourning would be out of place. The dead and their fictional mourners don't need our pity. The living do. > Pippin: > > Clearly the HP books are not meant to be read in a linear fashion. > > va32h: > > Heavens no, or the inconsistencies and mistakes will drive you crazy! Pippin: What would drive me crazy is expecting to find underlying consistency of events in a catastrophic universe. Underlying consistency of themes and characters, I think we get, or no one would care about these people and their problems enough to worry about them. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 20:01:50 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:01:50 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177444 bboyminn wrote: > > One problem with 'literary' writing is the incessant need for style over substance. > > As an example, in most high school English Composition > classes, you are usually given two grades. Your > composition might come back looking like this +C/-B. > Meaning that from a technical literary and style aspect, > you did C+ work; from a storytelling aspect, you did > B- work. > > Too many post-modern realists believe that a book > should be all style. They operate under the mistaken > belief that if you do everything 'technically' correct > then you writing something of significants. Of course, > any rational person, and certainly the buying public, > know that isn't true. We don't want perfect style; > we want a good captivating story. I'll take a good > story badly written over a bad story perfectly written > every time. Of course, ideally, I want a good story > nicely written. > > As for technical style, JKR breaks many many rules. > For example, she uses asides and parenthetical > expressions. She also uses 'all-caps' expressions. > Your high school English teacher will generally hold > these against you. However, I think JKR weaves them > skillfully into her story, and further believe that > they add to rather than subtract from the story. > > Finally, the story itself. To me story, not style, > is the God of good writing. JKR is a master story- > teller. She weaves a magical story spell that many > many many many many nights has keep me up reading > way past my bedtime and into the dawn. > > So, after all this rambling, maybe Grade B is about > right from a technical perspective with regard to > JKR's writing, but for me she is absolutely Grade > A++ in storytelling. > > > > Laura: > > > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > > before, even though I have read all of the books multiple > > times and listened to them on audio in the American, > > British, and German versions. ... > > bboyminn: > > The adverb thing I think refers, as others have said, > to JKR's tendency to say - > > He said angrily... > > Said Harry softly... > > ...Ron said shyly... > > ...Hermione said furiously... > > In the earlier books, she maybe over does it a bit, > but most of the time I am so caught up in the story > and so interest in what is happening to the > characters, that I don't notice it. Though I will > concede she has improved in the later books. Still > adverbs are a valid literary device, and work > quite well if you mix it up a bit with other methods. Carol responds: I'm not sure I'd call what you're referring to a "literary" writing style though writers who use overly formal diction, unnecessarily long words, and "purple prose" may be attempting to sound literary. Editors try to eliminate these weaknesses, along with cliches, euphemisms, unnecessary passive voice, and needless abstraction. It's essentially the same problem that professors encounter with graduate students who want to sound sophisticated and the general public has to endure with everyone from cops to salespeople to weathermen trying to sound fancy and formal ("emergency situation," "precipitation event"). Never having seen one of JKR's drafts (I can't decipher her writing on her website), I'm not sure how much editing her manuscripts have undergone. I do know that had I been the copyeditor, I would have changed a word or two, starting with "fug" in HBP, and eliminated the misplaced modifiers (which I know are there even in DH but which I couldn't find because for some reason, I'm finding it less easy to memorize key segments of that book than its predecessors, either because I'm focused on particular chapters or because I'm still figuring out what happened and why (and what might have happened "if only," a topic I haven't posted on here because it's not really canon-related). You seem to be using "style" rather dismissively, as if it were an unimportant component of good writing, but ideally, style and substance work together. It doesn't matter how well a story is constructed or how exciting the elements of the plot are if it's written so clumsily that the reader is distracted and can't identify with the characters. (Some readers can't get through "Moby Dick" because they're put off by its discursive and wordy style or by the "thees" and "thous" of the characters with a Quaker background--an error on Melville's part, actually, since the Quakers said "thee" but not "thou," but Melville wanted Ahab and Starbuck to sound Shakespearean or even biblical.) At any rate, I think "B" (or "E," if we're using OWL grades) is a fair grade for JKR's style as edited (maybe the copyeditor rather than JKR deserves the B for not improving the diction and sentence structure in the few places where the flaws are noticeable. The style isn't excellent (either invisible or adding to the effect), but it's above average, certainly better than most of the manuscripts submitted to me for editing, which contain gems that I'd love to post here but can't because it would be a discourtesy to my "clients" (euphemism for "customers," which for some reason we're not supposed to use, possibly because it calls attention to the business aspect of editing). Regarding adverbs, here's some advice from an excellent website on writing style: "Begin by avoiding adjectives and adverbs. Only use them when the noun or verb can't do the job alone. Used sparingly, adjectives or adverbs can have a powerful impact." IOW, it's best to convey meaning through concrete nouns and strong verbs in the active voice. But, like the passive voice, which should be used only "when you don't know who did it, your readers don't care who did it, or you don't want them to know who did it," adverbs and adjectives do have their uses. "Furious" and "furiously," for example, quite clearly convey a particular degree of anger in much the same way as "his face contorted in fury." Here's a link to the site, which I highly recommend to anyone interested in writing fiction or fanfic: http://www.esc.edu/esconline/across_esc/writerscomplex.nsf/0/336aa1a4426e652a852569c3006c815d?OpenDocument#passive Eggplant suggested that adverbs become annoying through the repetition of "-ly," but the incessant repetition of "said" with no synonyms or adverbs or substitution of action for attribution can be equally tiresome. Just read a passage from William Saroyan to get a taste of pure unadulterated "said": "Mr. Spangler watched him a moment and then said, "How do you like being a messenger?" ""How do I like it?" Homer said. "I like it better than anything. You sure get to see a lot of different people. You sure get to go to a lot of different places." ""Yes, you do," Spangler said. He paused to look at the boy a little closer. "How did you sleep last night?" ""Fine," Homer said. "I was pretty tired but I slept fine."" Actually, Saroyan blends the dialogue with action, but the "said, said, said" effect is noticeable and, for some readers, annoying. JKR's style is more varied. Here's a sample from DH: ""But you'd have been better, much better, than Fudge or Scrimgeour!" burst out Harry. ""Would I?" asked Dumbledore heavily. "I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. I was safer at Hogwarts. I think I was a good teacher-?" ""You were the best--" ""--you are very kind, Harry. But while I busied myself with the training of young wizards, Grindelwald was raising an army. They say he feared me, and perhaps he did, but less, I think, than I feared him. ""Oh, not death," said Dumbledore, in answer to Harry's questioning look" (DH Am. ed. 717-18). The dialogue is mixed with action, as in the Saroyan example, but the attributions are also varied, some missing, some using "said" alone, some using synonyms ("asked," "burst out") along with an occasional adverb ("heavily"). She also varies the position of "said," so sometimes we have "Harry said" or "Dumbledore said" and sometimes it's "said Harry" or "said Dumbledore." (Most writers are more consistent in following a pattern, either "said X" or "X said." I'm not sure whether the inconsistency is a flaw or not; I'd say not since it isn't distracting.) The passage is very readable, the chief flaw being the length of the snipped commentary from DD. It's varied, it appeals to sight as well as hearing, and the reader has no difficulty in following it. We know which character is speaking. I'll rewrite in in an exaggerated Saroyan/Hemingway style to illustrate my point: ""But you'd have been better, much better, than Fudge or Scrimgeour!" Harry said. ""Would I?" Dumbledore said. "I am not so sure. I had proven, as a very young man, that power was my weakness and my temptation. It is a curious thing, Harry, but perhaps those who are best suited to power are those who have never sought it. I was safer at Hogwarts. I think I was a good teacher-?" ""You were the best--" Harry said. ""--you are very kind, Harry," Dumbledore said. "But while I busied myself with the training of young wizards, Grindelwald was raising an army. They say he feared me, and perhaps he did, but less, I think, than I feared him." "Harry looked at him but said nothing. ""Oh, not death," said Dumbledore." Which is better? I prefer JKR's (or her editor's) version to my silly succession of "saids." Which is not to say that JKR's writing is perfect. "Burst out" is, IMO, exactly right in the quoted passage, but the use of synonyms can be overdone. For example, one page (which I forgot to bookmark as I was flipping through DH) has "Hermione panted," "Ron wheezed," and "Hermione panted" a second time in quick succession. Not a major flaw, by any means, but I'd have changed the second "Hermione panted" to "Hermione said, still gasping for breath," or something along those lines. Carol, who believes that grace and precision and concreteness shape the reader's emotional response to a story and make it "real" in a way that clumsy, abstract, pompous writing can't P.S. In case anyone is a Saroyan fan, I'm not accusing him of being "clumsy, abstract, or pompous." I was only showing what happens when an author incessantly uses "said" with few synonyms and no adverbs to vary the dialogue. I could have used Hemingway's "Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" to illustrate the same point: http://www.geocities.com/cyber_explorer99/hemingwaymacomber.html From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 20:05:41 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:05:41 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177445 > >>Prep0strus: > There's been a lot of discussion about Draco, and I'd like to > know what would make anyone identify with him or like him. > > Look, I know the Nazi/Hitler analogy is played out, but I think many > people feel that this is what JKR was going for, and so it's not > my personal analogy, but hers, when I say: how do the people who > identify with Draco see themselves? > I mean, does anybody say, "Yeah, I was rich and spoiled. I was > mean to poor people. I was racist and prejudiced and wanted people > to be killed. My dad worked for Hitler, and I couldn't wait to > work for him too." > Betsy Hp: For me it was a couple of things. The first, rather meta reason is that my experience with the School-days genre is Mallory Towers. In that series, the heroine and her best friend absolutely *hate* each other all during their first year. But at the end of that first book, everything comes to a head and they both realize that their first impressions of each other were mistaken. For the rest of the series they're inseperable. As I'd been recommended to the Potter series by my sister telling me, "It's like Mallory Towers but with magic!" I expected Harry to have a similar conflict with a boy who'd turn out to be his best friend. That Draco is the *only* character in canon to show an interest in Harry *before* knowing Harry's surname, added to my conviction. The second reason is that I *liked* Draco during his first scene. He was awkward but trying. And that he said the absolute worst thing (making fun of Hagrid) in an attempt to win Harry over is *so* something I could relate too. And yes, I can absolutely relate to a child that adores his father to such an extent he parrots everything his dad says. Also, I can relate to being in a group that racists like. Not that my family was racist. But in learning about the Holocaust in grade school my first realization was that 3/4ths of my class would have been shipped off to camps. My second realization was that I'd have been recruited for the Hitler Youth. And I've spent a lot of time wondering what I'd have done if I'd been in that situation. Would I have had the clarity of thought to resist? What if my family were supportive of the Nazi regime? To see Draco engaged in a similar struggle in HBP, one in which he had absolutely no adult support (and yeah, I hated Snape for that), was a fascinating story-line for me. It's too bad JKR wasn't all that interested herself and let it just fizzle out. > >>Cel: > > I don't think there is much to admire in him, for starters, and > admiration is key to sort of relating to a character, because there > must be some good in them that you aspire to. > Betsy Hp: Hmm... I don't really need to admire characters to like them. In fact, I tend to like characters that have something they're really struggling with. For example, one of my most favorite children's books is "The Secret Garden". The heroine, Mary, is a little girl who strikes me as very Dudley like. Another character, Colin, is much like Draco. They're both allowed to blossom and grow, but I liked them *before* the book ended when they were still in their nasty, screaming, pinched-face mode. I like what Montavilla47 says: > > A character who changes is usually more interesting than > a character who doesn't. > > So, I don't identify with Draco's wealth, looks, clothes, or > political views. I don't admire any of them (except maybe > the clothes). But I empathize with his struggle to find his > own way that incorporates his parents' worldview with > his own thoughts and feelings. > > And I enjoy his humor. Betsy Hp: Exactly. Betsy Hp (coming late to the party -- sorry) From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 20:07:38 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:07:38 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177446 > Prep0strus: > This is true, and yet also doesn't make me want to like him, either. > Just because he cannot follow through on performing a gruesome act > himself (and I maintain, if he had succeeded from afar with a potion > or item, as he tried to, he would have still been proud and full of > bravado) does not make him admirable. zgirnius: I disagree. You could be right about how Draco would feel if, say, Katie Bell had died in HBP (though I don't believe it, but I won't argue it becaue I donlt see much evidence either way). But I don't think he would so casually dismiss his own killing of someone else post HBP, just because it was not up close and personal. To me, it seems that the reason for not killing Dumbledore was not squeamishness. The AK strikes me as a 'clean' way to kill, it is instantaneous and the victim has no time to writhe or otherwise express pain or distress once it is done, and exhinbits no gruesome syumptoms post-mortem. A coward would have done it to avoid punishment. I think his failure was not due to squeamishness or cowardice, but understanding. "You are not a killer, Draco", Dumbledore said, and I think Draco realized, as a result of that conversatoin, that he is not. Seeing this person there, alive and talking to him, and thinking about himself, ending that, made it real in a way it had not been to him before, and that's not something he will forget in the future, even if the person he is (hypothetically) killing is miles away. >Prep0strus: > He still supports these actions as done by other people. zgirnius: Why can he not bear to look at Charity Burbage, then? Why does he not indentify Hermione and Ron when he has the chance? I see no evidence he does. > Prep0strus: > He is, primarily, a coward. he does not > want to have to face ANYTHING. zgirnius; Except fiendfyre. (OK, he does not *want* to. My point is that he can and does. I doubt Snape wanted to face Voldemort either, but that does not make him a coward, does it?) > Prep0strus: > I am happy he was not able to kill > dumbledore, but his support of the basilisk, of his parents... zgirnius: Since I see Draco as a character who is dynamic and changes over the course of the books, the basilisk is irrelevant to me. That's Draco, pre-HBP, no argument. In a childish way, he wishes people he does not like would die. I would not see abandonment of his parents to Voldemort in DH as required, I am afraid. His father did a lot of evil, his mother perhaps less actively so, but they were good parents to him. They loved him, cared for him, provided for him, and valued him above their evil cause and their lives. To me, it would be pretty heartless, since he clearly returns their love. > Prep0strus: > he's not the consummate loser that the coyote is. zgirnius: Only when he goes against Harry directly; then he is. It is not Harry's loss that Draco is Seeker for his team, it is none of his business (for example). > Prep0strus: > And what he did > with Severus, again, discussed ad nauseum... is he opened a door. and > Severus, with hubris and schadenfreude ran through it. zgirnius: You seem to have mistaken my point. I am not saying Sirius is like Draco because he caused Severus to go into the tunnel. I am saying Sirius is the way you *claim* Draco is, because when he realized Severus did go into the tunnel, he was not interested in saving him. He would only take that sort of risk for a friend. (As Draco did in the RoR). You had asked me if Draco would have saved Harry from the fire. I actually think he would have saved Harry. Not out of any love for the boy (why should he like Harry?!), but Harry dead is definitely bad news for Draco and his parents. (Which may or may not have been James's reasoning in the Prank - the trouble Sev's death could cause Lupin, and Sirius if his role came out). As far as saying Draco is different from Sirius/Ron because he is on the wrong side - in my opinion, all three boys followed their hearts. Ron loves his family and accepts their pro-Dumbledore politics, which become that much more real and important to him when he falls in love with a Muggleborn witch and becomes the best friend of Harry Potter. Sirius seems not to have a problem with Slytherin House on the train (he only worries that James might have a problem with him because his family were all in Slytherin)- he attacks Severus because the boy he just met, and admired, does. James becomes like a brother to him, and so he adopts James' views. Draco has a positive and loving relationship with his parents, and so adopts their views and chooses their side in the conflict. Until the fact that his side requires him to do stuff that he just does not want to do is driven home to him in HBP. At that point, though, he's still stuck because of his parents. > Prep0strus: > I see Draco's actions as cowardice, not a change of heart. > that can be interpreted different ways, validly, but to me, yes, he > would have to be a little of the hero in order to be redeemed. Never > as selfless or brave as harry, but he should show something. zgirnius: I don't see Draco as needing, or having, a change of heart. In my opinion, he was never a true supporter of Voldemort. He joined up in ignorance and guided by his love for his parents, and when he saw what this actually meant, he realized it was not for him. And it never had been. He would not have killed Dumbledore when he was younger any more than he would have at the end of HBP. > Prep0strus: > Gets the family, and maybe he stops chasing after the > roadrunner. zgirnius: Lucius Malfoy had a wife and family. Why should Draco not?! Family is clearly something he values, and he has exhibited traits that lead me to believe he would cherish his wife and child. In what sense, then, does he not deserve them? He deserves a wife if he has found a woman to love and treats her well. He deserves a child if he cares for and loves him. That he was a bully in school has nothing to do with it. So was James, and I would say he deserved Lily and Harry for exactly the same reasons. I think, by the way, that Rowling agrees with me, and this is why all three of the Malfoys survived. I think the love of family is important to her. She showed all of the Malfoys valued their love of one another above ambition, the cause, etc., and then she let Narcissa's choice to lie to Voldemort for Draco's sake save them. From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Sep 26 20:11:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:11:59 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177447 . Adam (prep0strus) > I don't think Draco gets sense smacked into him, because he doesn't > really lose very much. And we never see his internal conflict. Pippin: All that misery and indecison in the bathroom and on the tower was just fluff? He definitely lost his sense that Draco Malfoy is a Master of the Universe. You mentioned Draco's money about six times in your post. Were you expecting him to lose it? It's not as if Draco has vastly misused his fortune and deserves to be deprived of it. At the time of the story it's not even clear he has control of it. And if wealth is a sign of evil, JKR's in trouble and how I think he did learn a lesson. He'd been raised to think the rules didn't apply to him, that he could brag, bully or buy his way through life. That was his idea about the Dark Arts, that the rules forbidding them were for other people's protection. Purebloods didn't need them, just as they didn't need protection from Lord Voldemort. It's a big step from that outlook to being a law-abiding citizen, and there's no hint in the epilogue that he's anything else, unlike Lucius, who was always up to something shady. There's a hint of "They shall strike at your head and you shall strike at their heel" in Draco's nod and Scorpius's name, but also a reminder that a sinister image is not necessarily the reality. Pippin From va32h at comcast.net Wed Sep 26 20:40:15 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:40:15 -0000 Subject: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177448 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: >> And same with mourning rituals for me. Don't you think that if she > should show them for Lupin and Tonks she should show them for all 50 > soldiers and civilians who fallen in the Battle of Hogwarts? > > I mean, it is obvious to me that they would be properly buried and > mourned and one scene when Harry sees them lying there made me cry > more than long ritual would have, I think. va32h: Of course not. We haven't known all 50 or so "soldiers and civilians" over the course of several books. We have known Fred since book one, and Lupin since book 3 and both of them were deeply important to Harry. So "they died" just doesn't cut it for me, as a reader. And let me stress that I am not asking for 1,000 pages of angst-ridden heartbreak...or a huge dramatic death scene for every character. I know extremely well how mundane death can be in the midst of a battle. But that should not be an excuse to just gloss over it. My husband has watched his fellow soliders die and let me tell you - no matter how mundane or boring or non-heroic their death was, every single one of them gets the same amount of attention and respect. The guy who died in the middle of the mess hall of a heart attack gets the same attention and honor as the guy who got shot in the face as the guy who was just minding his own business and had the back luck to be standing where an IED got thrown. At some point we're just talking in circles...I'm glad you like the book, really. I just don't, and the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am. va32h From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Sep 26 20:41:00 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:41:00 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Morality of Mythical Objects In-Reply-To: <2543107.1190816027594.JavaMail.root@mswamui-backed.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177449 A few notes here on various peoples' messages. va32h said in message 177399: > You can act recklessly - as if you are above > death (the brother with the wand), or you can > wallow in mourning for someone who's already > gone (the brother with the stone)or you can > accept that Death will be out there somewhere, > sometime and live your own life to the fullest, > until you have to meet him. Ann: I think this is absolutely spot on. I don't think the Cloak represents running from Death, as lots of listies seem to, so much as humility and wisdom: not deliberately courting Death. It's possible to run a happy medium. Consider all the scrapes Harry gets into by virtue of having the Cloak - he's hardly hiding away, is he? va32h: > all about DEATH, and DYING, and DEATH DEATH DEATH, > were ALL going to DIE - which was JKR's apparent > obsession. Ann: I don't think this is an "obsession" of hers. It is the foundation-stone of human existence, after all. Or am I just morbid? Prep0strus in message 177404: > There is no use for the second gift ??" it simply > doesn???t work properly. Ann: The "Tale" says that "the second brother, who was an arrogant man, decided that he wanted to humiliate Death still further, and asked for the power to recall others from Death." So he was trying to get the better of Death just as the first was. The point is, IMHO, not that it doesn't work properly, but that it can't - that the brother got the nearest thing to what he wanted, and that wasn't nearly close enough. "The Monkey's Paw", anyone? Alla in message 177413: > I just do not see any analogies, any possible RL > analogy with human being deciding for himself how > long he can live, if that makes sense. Ann: But this is wizarding culture, where this *is* possible. There's the Philosopher's Stone (whose owners Nicolas and Perenelle eventually choose to die to remove the necessity for the Stone), there's Unicorn blood, and presumably Horcruxes lengthen the lifespan, else Voldemort wouldn't have gone to such lengths with his. Bart Lidofsky wrote in 177430: > I suspect the key is that the lesson is for the > Wizarding World, and NOT the Muggle World (or the > Real World). Because it's not about Death; it's > about Muggles... The Elder Wand symbolized taking > over... the stone was the second choice; as it > brought the dead to life, it represented the Wizards > joining the Muggles as neighbors rather than as > rulers... the Wizards choose the route of being > hidden from the Muggles (the invisibility cloak). Ann: I like this, but could you explain the equation of the Stone with Muggle-wizard cooperation? I don't understand it at all. But if I tweak the idea slightly, it makes much more sense to me: the Wand represents bloodshed and warfare, something bad enough in any community and especially bad in such a small one as the Wizarding World; the Stone represents the importance of acknowledging that the past is past; and the Cloak, the need to lead a quiet, Muggle-free life. The problem with this interpretation is that in this case, it's number two that's the ringer. 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.) For myself, I think the story's relatively recent, and likely a childrens' version of the true story of the Peverells, after all three Hallows were lost to history and assumed to be myth. Not a genuine folk story, but a bourgeois imitation. So Xenophilius is, IMHO, reading more into the story than is actually there; but that's a given if the story's as young as I assume. I guess I'm also saying that most of the people in this thread are doing the same, so I hope nobody feels offended. And maybe JKR just isn't that good at imitating folk stories, and I'm barking up the wrong tree altogether? Ann, who enjoyed the stopover at Lovegood Castle for its own fairytale atmosphere, especially the repeated mentions of Luna fishing by the stream From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 20:49:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:49:23 -0000 Subject: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177450 > va32h: > So "they died" just doesn't cut it for me, as a reader. > > And let me stress that I am not asking for 1,000 pages of angst- ridden > heartbreak...or a huge dramatic death scene for every character. I > know extremely well how mundane death can be in the midst of a battle. > > But that should not be an excuse to just gloss over it. Alla: I snipped rather arbitrarily, since I was not sure to which point exactly I am replying. Of course if I thought that no attention would be given to the fallen, I would be upset. But I guess it was a clear implication to me that equal attention would be given in mourning all those who are lying in the Great Hall. I guess I did not need to see that, to me the scene that I saw implied it, if that makes sense. I guess I did not think she glossed over it at all. But yes, I can again only second Pippin I AM sorry that you are dissapointed and to me it is the contrary, the more I talk about it the happier I became with the book. Time to agree to disagree I suppose. From ida3 at planet.nl Wed Sep 26 21:11:30 2007 From: ida3 at planet.nl (Dana) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:11:30 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177451 Carol responds: > I used to think something similar, that the soul bits from the > Horcruxes would go to the afterlife when the Horcrux container was > destroyed, but that's not the implication I get from Dumbledore's or > Hermione's words. Clearly, the thing under the bench is not the > destroyed soul bit (see upthread). And if your interpretation were > correct, there would be eight flayed babies (one for each piece of > Voldie's soul, including the one within himself) lying around > waiting to be reunited in whatever Voldie's equivalent of King's > Cross is. In my view, there's only one baby, the soul that was in > Voldie himself,which became Vapor!mort, then was inside Fetal!mort > and then, "however maimed, reside[d] in his regenerate body" (DD to > Harry, HBP Am. ed.503), and, after his death, will lie forever > untouched and beyond comfort or restoration unless he feels > remorse, and even then cannot be whole because the Horcrux soul > bits have been destroyed because it has been mutilated beyond the > realms of what we might call 'usual evil'" (502). Dana: I totally understand your interpretation but what I do not get is why? Why would it represent LV's conscious soul, while the only part of LV dying in connection to these events is the piece residing in Harry himself. A "living" soul would not have been able to be there and LV would not been able to get there because the soul bit in Nagini would still have prevented his living soul from moving on. LV's soul would not have been able to entire this limbo just as he couldn't leave after the events in GH. It makes no sense that the baby-like creature to represent LV's conscious "living" soul. DD's entire plan was to keep LV alive so Harry could return and in your scenarion this would have failed because like Harry, LV would truly have been death in that moment (which he couldn't because of Nagini). Just because JKR used the baby symbolism before in GoF doesn't mean that the baby-like creature is a reflection of the same thing. The only thing that is similar is its helplessness. Technically there indeed would at the time of Harry's near-death experience be 6 maimed soul pieces existing in limbo. We do not see them because this one is Harry's personal experience within his own personal limbo but I have no doubt that JKR meant for us to expect that LV would indeed witness the implications of the damage he brought onto each individual soul piece. Ask yourself this question, why would the conscious soul piece be part of Harry's personal near-death experience? It wouldn't but the soul piece residing in Harry would because it died at the same time Harry did and was very much part of Harry's life from the age of 15 months. DD specifically states in the quote you posted above that LV's soul could, to some degree, be restored if LV would truly feel remorse for the damage (evil) he has done, not only to other people but especially to his own soul. If DD was talking about that specific soul piece as if it where LV's conscious soul then this would be a moot point because the baby-like creature was incapable of doing anything at all. LV's conscious soul is the only one that could do anything for the soul piece we see in Harry's vision but only to some extent because the damage LV has caused to his own soul is so sever that nothing LV could ever do would make it able to be completely whole again. Damaging the soul is a universal sin not an earthly sin and therefore an earthly way of repenting the soul will never be enough to undo what is done. I know many people have objected to the imagery used to reflect the mutilation LV has put on his soul and many are repulsed by the idea that neither Harry nor DD tried to save or comfort it but essentially no one but LV himself could do anything for this particular soul piece. LV destroyed his own soul and it would mean that he would need to consciously make an effort to mend what he has broken to save any of his soul pieces. These soul pieces are therefore entirely dependent on LV's choice to make aments and he will never be able to restore his soul completely because the destruction of each individual soul piece has resulted in extra damage brought upon them. It is the ultimate evil in JKR's world and the piece we see in Harry's vision is just a reflection of the damage LV brought upon his soul. Neither Harry nor DD could do anything for the baby-like creature because neither of them can undo the damage LV caused to it. Neither Harry nor DD could comfort or take away its pain because it is caused by the absence of the other pieces that made up LV's soul in its entirety. LV's conscious soul (although this is speculation on my part) will probably indeed meet his 7 soul pieces in limbo and he will consciously experience their pain and will probably unlike Harry be able to disregard any of their murmurings and grovels. This will probably be LV's personal hell and he could have completely avoided this if he had respected the one holy part of human existence -> his own soul. It would not be a punishment for the ultimate crime against universal pureness if LV could not consciously experience the pain he caused. Anyway, everything you have brought forward is still true even if the soul piece was not actually LV's conscious soul and it actually makes more sense if it wasn't because if it was then LV's conscious soul would thus consciously have experienced the events as well and he would know what he would become and he would know that Harry had chosen to go back but he doesn't. Also (and I know logic is not JKR's strong suit) if LV had truly died in that event as we are to presume Harry did then Harry would no longer have the ability to go back because LV's body (as the blood was the binding factor anchoring Harry's soul to the world of the living) would have been death. So while LV's soul would still have his soul piece residing in Nagini enabling him to come back, Harry would have lost that opportunity if LV would have been death in that specific moment. Carol: > But making the Horcruxes has mutilated Voldie's soul to the extent > that it may be damaged beyond repair, and, IMO, cannot be fully > restored even by remorse after the soul bits have been destroyed. > What makes me think they were utterly destroyed and not just waiting > beyond the Veil or at the Voldie equivalent of King's Cross to > rejoin him? Dana: Well I think our difference in interpretation comes from our differences in our understanding of the concept "beyond the veil" as it is presented in the Potter verse in relation to what we witness in Harry's vision. I do not perceive Harry's experience as passing beyond the veil. To me, Harry would only have gone beyond the veil if he had, so to speak, taken the train and moved on. Harry was actually in limbo. This is the place where Nearly Headless Nick decided he was to scared to find out where the train would be going and where he decided to go back to the land of the living but because his body was no longer there he remains in this plane as a mere imprint of his previous self. LV's soul pieces do not have the ability to move on because they have no individuality to make such choices or decisions. They are not individual souls but just pieces of what was once one complete soul and although LV was able to "live" with his soul shattered all over the place, he can only move on to the afterlife as one soul and because he will never be able to achieve this point completely he will remain in limbo for eternity. He will neither be here nor there and thus will not be able to enjoy the rewards of the afterlife as normal souls would. He will also not be able to go back as a ghost because his soul pieces with anchor him to this limbo and neither could he move forward for this same reason. LV got the ultimate punishment. He split his soul so they would anchor him to the world of the living and they will still perform this function after his conscious died as they now will anchor him to the limbo of his own creation too. To answer your last question (in the way I see it of course) then LV will not be joined by his soul pieces but LV will be joining them. Carol: > for whom the whole point of the flayed baby is its representation > of the Voldie soul's future state, a point that could not be made > if the baby were the destroyed soul bit. Dana: Why? Wouldn't it be far more impressing if LV would be confronted with the damage he caused without really being able to undo that damage but eternally trying then to be a creature without real awareness or consciousness? A baby is helpless and so are LV's individual soul pieces, except the one that has consciousness. JMHO Dana From orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk Wed Sep 26 22:05:43 2007 From: orphan_ann at hotmail.co.uk (or.phan_ann) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:05:43 -0000 Subject: Scattered thoughts on Snape, Luna, and bullying Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177452 I'm afraid this is as rambling and disconnected as it sounds, but hopefully there's one or two interesting things in here. I think Snape and Luna are two very similar characters, and my liking for and identification with them informs a few points below, rather than anything like, I don't know, *canon*. This all started when I was thinking about a few issues I have with the series, and what I might do about them; and I thought that JKR should have introduced Luna in CoS rather than OotP. It was her first year, after all, and it would have avoided the rather clumsy-looking addition of a main character in the fifth of a seven-book series. I don't necessarily think she should have been a major character, but consider the situation: an unknown monster is stalking the school, Petrifying students, with mysterious painted messages appearing on the walls, nobody knows how, promising that the Chamber of Secrets, a part of speculation and folklore rather than serious history, has been opened, and that Enemies of some mysterious Heir should beware. Nobody knows what the animal is, who'll be attacked next, or if the Chamber of Secrets has anything to do with it anyway. Students are especially worried after it emerges that the famous Harry Potter can talk to snakes ? the symbol of Slytherin ? and the Twins start jokingly that he is the vengeful Heir. Luna would fit in perfectly. In fact, I thought, it probably happened anyway, and we didn't see it because JKR was "pointing the camera" elsewhere. Except that, while she'd be the butt of jokes, they wouldn't be as friendly as the Twins' were. Look at the end of OotP: Luna's so used to people stealing her things that she doesn't even accept Harry's offer of help finding them again (pp. 759-61 UK ed); or HBP chapter 7, (p. 132 UK ed), when she says that the DA "was like having friends", or near the end of DH chapter 21, (pp. 338-9 UK ed), where the Trio's, Ginny's, and Neville's portraits are linked by golden chains of the word "friends". She doesn't see m to have any other friends *at all*, in her *sixth year*, and the only other interactions she seems to have are when other people bully her. D igression on bullying: I read the recent spate of po sts on the subject with interest, and if I'd rea lised I'd be mentioning specific messages, I would have written this beforehand; I don't want to flog a dead horse, no matter how interesting its decomposition. I don' t think that Draco and the Trio's antagonism has anythin g to do with bullying. The first message I want to mention is Steve/bboyminn in message 177196: > Draco threatened Hermione's life. If that makes > Hermione reasonably fear for her safety and her > life, she is within her rights to defend herself [ ] > Draco is the provoker. [ ] He continual creates > situations where others are threatened and > intimidated, and he pay a price for that. [ ] He can > start a fight, he just can't finish it. Not unless > the advantage is massively on his side. > > A little playground taunting is one thing, but out > and out threats and intimidation call for action. > When no authorities are there to act on your > behalf, then you are compelled to act for yourself. Ann: JKR doesn't intend Draco to be a bully, but a rival for and equal to Harry, and in any case he often seems to be the underdog. He can't bully the Trio because they are more powerful than he is. They are three friends, with allies (Neville, the twins, the DA), and he is one guy with a couple of henchmen. Harry outclasses Draco in every way ? he is better connected, better supported by the adults, appears to be more popular, is a hero within Hogwarts, *has his own private army*, and is a better broomstick rider/ Quidditch player; Draco only has a chance when the adults favour him: in Potions classes and when Umbridge infests the school. The nearest thing to a fair fight is in HBP chapter 7, when Draco wins, but only because he manages to shoot first. In short, whatever Draco says, words are all he has, and I don't think the Trio's responding with magic is ever justifiable. Whatever Draco he says is "a little playground taunting" ? even at the end of GoF: > He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. `Too late > now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the > Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first!' Ann: Bullies are more powerful than the bullied, not less. Draco isn't threatening anyone here, he's just full of hot air. > Nita in message 177212: > Unfortunately, Ms Rowling doesn't believe in this > solution [telling someone you're being bullied ? Ann] > enough to even try it in any of her books. Or > perhaps she's simply more interested in dramatic > wish-fulfilment than the boring realistic stuff us > mortals have to do, which isn't even all that > effective... > > Neville, Severus and Luna don't get to deliver > amazing smack-downs with the help of friends while > the readers cheer. It's an interesting imbalance of > realism Ann: Well, there's my answer. There isn't an imbalance of realism because you're not comparing like with like. But I do think that solutions to bullying are realistically depicted in the books, in Neville's case at least (we see very little of Snape and Luna being bullied.) He tries fighting back, and ends up flattened by Crabbe and Goyle in PS/SS chapter 13 (p. 166, UK ed.) McGonagall can get his Remembrall back for him in chapter 9 (p. 108), but his refusal to go to her for help (in chapter 13, p. 160) is, I think, wholly realistic, and not designed to give JKR room for "dramatic wish-fulfilment"; the Trio get those. He's right not to tell a teacher, because Malfoy knows that he shouldn't be bullying Neville anyway. If McGonagall told him not to, he'd just jeer at Neville for telling, and take care not to be seen. What stops Neville's being bullied is his personal growth, aided by Hermione, fake!Moody in GoF, and the DA in OotP. Whereupon Neville's subplot comes to an IMHO abrupt and unsatisfying halt, but I think this is, also IMHO, the only truly useful answer for anyone being bullied: personal growth away from someone who can be bullied, not into someone who doesn't care. Luna doesn't seem to have anyone like this around for her. I suspect that while she seems unaffected by bullying, the damage is more subtle, and she's gradually moving further and further away from the real world, possibly to end up as a semi-recluse, like her father. This is subtle, insidious damage, and just not caring won't cut it. We don't know if Lily helped Snape in this way, but I suspect she did, at least at first. Back to Luna. She is an extraordinarily isolated character, and her obvious (to me) parallel is Snape. They are both bullied outsiders (although Snape is picked on by the Marauders, while the Twins seem to leave Luna alone); they are both talented wizards; they are the only two major characters marked as being creative (Luna's conspiracy theories and her paintings, Snape's potions), and they only have one group of friends, and that a very unusual clique: Luna has the DA, and Snape the young Death Eaters. This last point is a bit contentious, as Snape also has Lily, was popular with Slughorn and perhaps other Slytherins, but the proto-Death Eaters seem to have been a clique of their own at Hogwarts and Lily implies that they're Snape's only friends in "The Prince's Tale" (pp. 541-2, DH). I think they have three chief differences: firstly, Luna is much more tranquil and self-confident than the sneering, hexing, easily provoked Snape, whose passions are not limited to bile, but who is from a young age a double agent in desperate circumstances, all for the love of a girl who doesn't love him back. We know Luna turns the other cheek; can you see her changing sides for her father's sake? Secondly, Luna lacks Snape's critical faculty. This is an essential part of the creative mind; Snape can decide which of his new spells and potion modifications don't work, refining them until he's satisfied. HBP chapter 12 describes the notes in the Prince's Potions book as having "crossings-out and revisions [and] many crossings-out and alterations" for Sectumsepra in particular (p. 224.) Luna, on the other hand, will believe in anything if it's ridiculous enough. In this respect Snape is more of a fully-formed character, native to the Wizarding World, whereas Luna is more comic relief, and is an outsider. Note that Luna never acts on her daft ideas when they would get in the way of the action: she's happy enough to mouth off about Crumple-Horned Snorcacks, but never tries to persuade Harry to teach the DA Aguamenti to douse Fudge's Heliopath army. (Great spell and monster names, by the way.) This is also essential to Snape's success as both wizard and spy: he can't afford to build his house on sand when behaving so dangerously. The other difference, I think, is that they trust people for different reasons. Luna heeds the advice of those close to her ? her father, of course, and Hermione when she summons the DA at the end of OotP and HBP. Snape, I think, only pays attention to those he perceives as intelligent, informed and powerful. I can't think of any canon support for this idea; it just seems reasonable to me. He doesn't bother paying attention to the weak or foolish, and only, I think notices them on special occasions: Neville for blowing up cauldrons, and Harry for being his parents' son. He bullies both, but they are things to him, not people. The people he pays attention to because of who they are powerful: Dumbledore, Voldemort, Lucius Malfoy (these categories will have shifted as he grew older: "The Prince's Tale" implies that Malfoy brought him from Sorting to Voldemort's side, and they met when Snape was only eleven and Malfoy a prefect.) Snape's Worst Memory was a rejection from Lily (pp. 569-72), who, I think, Snape saw as a refuge from home, Hogwarts, and the world at large ? as a strong potential protector. If they had ended up together, he would have been subordinate to her. The fact that wizards are inherently more powerful than Muggles probably ties into this (Snape/Petunia never had much chance), and this, of course, leads inexorably in the direction of pureblood supremacy. This is not especially admirable, but it's a natural response from a man who has not only been victimised throughout his entire life, and especially his formative years, but is also highly intelligent and ambitious; he reaches this conclusion from two starting points, as it were. I'd say that Muggles' individual powerlessness is the other major cause of wizard/Muggle relations being as antagonistic as they are. Whether wizards like Muggles or not, they have to admit that Muggles can't do something that even wizard children do instinctively; I suppose the best real-world parallel would be with mentally handicapped people. And the opportunities there for persecution and patronisation are legion. (I hope I haven't fallen into the latter there, or offended anyone in any other way.) A final note on Snape p.521 in OotP (chapter 26) mentions one of Snape's memories: "a hook-nosed man was shouting at a cowering woman, while a small dark-haired boy cried in a corner". Presumably this is his family, but note that Snape's father was a Muggle and his mother a witch (pp. 593-4 HBP, chapter 30.) I'm not quite sure what this means; is it a canon error? Is it an argument against what I think of Snape's reasons for loving Lily and becoming a Pureblood supremacist? Or perhaps it shows that Snape knew from a young age that magical power wasn't everything. Note that I implied that it was Malfoy's personality that drew Snape to the Death Eaters, and when they first met they were prefect and new Slytherin. and one on Luna. I intimated a moment ago that I didn't think that she was a very well-written character, and was too often used as crude comic relief, reading her magazines upside-down or wearing radish earrings. I don't think that JKR understands her as well as some of the other characters (I think the same's true of Neville.) I also think that these invitations to laugh at the weirdo compromise JKR's positive messages of acceptance of marginal people. She has no friends in the book until joining the DA, but is, I think, one of the most popular characters in fandom. I think that's because she's too separate from the readers for us to really know her, and in consequence, be irritated ? which is JKR's mistake in characterising her. Ann, who didn't mean to go on like this, really she didn't From loptwyn at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 22:03:35 2007 From: loptwyn at yahoo.com (Alice) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:03:35 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177453 >Pippin: > I think he did learn a lesson. He'd been raised to think the rules >didn't apply to him, that he could brag, bully or buy his way through >life. That was his idea about the Dark Arts, that the rules forbidding >them were for other people's protection. Purebloods didn't need them, >just as they didn't need protection from Lord Voldemort. Alice: And I'll bet little Scorpius has been warned big-time not to ever, *ever* get involved with some whacko dark wizard who wants to take over the world. >Betsy HP wrote: >To see Draco engaged in a similar struggle in HBP, one in which he >had absolutely no adult support (and yeah, I hated Snape for that), >was a fascinating story-line for me. Um, I seem to recall Snape trying to *offer* support to Draco and being turned away, both verbally and with occlumency ('I've got better help than you!'). Though granted, Draco had no way to know Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side and really *would* help him. Then again, Snape could hardly let Draco, a boy who has spent the five previous years being something of a braggart and a tattler, in on his true loyalties at this point. But I agree, HBP was Draco's most significant book (as it was Snape's, in a lot of ways). MadAlice >:> From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Sep 26 22:23:54 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:23:54 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177454 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "eggplant107" wrote: "Steve:: > > 'Spiral' is a lot more simple and > > straight forward that 'Helix'. > > It is also incorrect, the steam could not be rising in a spiral. A > spiral is 2 dimensional, a Helix is 3. And far from being "fancy" > helix has one fewer letter than spiral. Geoff: > > I know a fair bit about helices because > > I am a mathematician Eggplant: > I was a math major. Geoff: > > DNA and its double helix is not the > > usual stuff of casual conversation > > over coffee and biscuits. > > And if JKR had the opportunity to do a little something to help change > that sorry fact then she should have done so. I'm not saying this > spiral business is earth shattering or anything, its just a little > thing that nags at me for some reason. Geoff: Well, you've made a bit of an issue about it.... Speaking from a Maths point of view, I quite agree with you that a spiral should be two-dimensional and a helix three-dimensional. However, in the vernacular, this subtlety is not always recognised. Speak to the ordinary British man-in-the-street, and probably also to his counterpart in the US, and talk about a 'helix staircase' and you would probably get a puzzled look and a "Come again?". Say 'spiral staircase' and a little bulb would light up over their heads. Another case of the common use of a word not completely matching its correct definition. So perhaps we may allow Hermione the luxury of her interpretation: '"It's the most powerful love potion in the world!" said Hermione. "Quite right! You recognised it, I suppose, by its distinctive mother-of-pearl sheen?" "And the steam rising in characteristic spirals," said Hermione enthusiastically...' (HBP "The Half-Blood Prince" p.176 UK edition) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Sep 26 22:34:52 2007 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:34:52 -0000 Subject: Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177455 > >>Betsy HP wrote: > > To see Draco engaged in a similar struggle in HBP, one in which he > > had absolutely no adult support (and yeah, I hated Snape for that), > > was a fascinating story-line for me. > >>MadAlice: > Um, I seem to recall Snape trying to *offer* support to Draco and > being turned away, both verbally and with occlumency ('I've got better > help than you!'). Though granted, Draco had no way to know Snape > wasn't on Voldemort's side and really *would* help him. Then again, > Snape could hardly let Draco, a boy who has spent the five previous > years being something of a braggart and a tattler, in on his true > loyalties at this point. But I agree, HBP was Draco's most > significant book (as it was Snape's, in a lot of ways). Betsy Hp: Oh, I was unclear, sorry. I meant that Snape provided no support for Draco in DH. I totally understood Snape's caution in HBP (just as I understood Draco's pushing Snape away). But I did expect some sort of meeting of the minds in DH. Unfortunately, I think JKR completely forgot she'd written HBP. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 00:04:20 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:04:20 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177456 Dana wrote: > I totally understand your interpretation but what I do not get is why? Why would it represent LV's conscious soul, while the only part of LV dying in connection to these events is the piece residing in Harry himself. A "living" soul would not have been able to be there and LV would not been able to get there because the soul bit in Nagini would still have prevented his living soul from moving on. LV's soul would not have been able to entire this limbo just as he couldn't leave after the events in GH. It makes no sense that the baby-like creature to represent LV's conscious "living" soul. DD's entire plan was to keep LV alive so Harry could return and in your scenarion this would have failed because like Harry, LV would truly have been death in that moment (which he couldn't because of Nagini). > Technically there indeed would at the time of Harry's near-death experience be 6 maimed soul pieces existing in limbo. We do not see them because this one is Harry's personal experience within his own personal limbo but I have no doubt that JKR meant for us to expect that LV would indeed witness the implications of the damage he brought onto each individual soul piece. > Ask yourself this question, why would the conscious soul piece be part of Harry's personal near-death experience? It wouldn't but the > soul piece residing in Harry would because it died at the same time > Harry did and was very much part of Harry's life from the age of 15 > months. > LV's conscious soul (although this is speculation on my part) will > probably indeed meet his 7 soul pieces in limbo and he will > consciously experience their pain and will probably unlike Harry be > able to disregard any of their murmurings and grovels. This will > probably be LV's personal hell and he could have completely avoided > this if he had respected the one holy part of human existence -> his > own soul. It would not be a punishment for the ultimate crime against > universal pureness if LV could not consciously experience the pain he caused. > Also (and I know logic is not JKR's strong suit) if LV had truly died > in that event as we are to presume Harry did then Harry would no > longer have the ability to go back because LV's body (as the blood > was the binding factor anchoring Harry's soul to the world of the > living) would have been death. So while LV's soul would still have > his soul piece residing in Nagini enabling him to come back, Harry > would have lost that opportunity if LV would have been death in that > specific moment. > Well I think our difference in interpretation comes from our differences in our understanding of the concept "beyond the veil" as it is presented in the Potter verse in relation to what we witness in Harry's vision. > > I do not perceive Harry's experience as passing beyond the veil. To me, Harry would only have gone beyond the veil if he had, so to speak, taken the train and moved on. Harry was actually in limbo. > Carol responds: Actually, this can't be the source of our disagreement since I agree that Harry hasn't gone beyond the Veil. King's Cross is, as someone onlist put it, a kind of way station. Harry could have "gone on" to "the next great adventure" but chose not to do so. Dumbledore, who meets him there, is dead, but Harry is, to use your term, "a living soul." The scene resembles the Greek myths in which the hero meets a dead mentor in the Underworld and then returns to the living world except that we don't actually see what the afterlife (beyond the Veil) is like, nor does Harry, because he doesn't "take a train." I think that the flayed baby (Voldie's soul) is not dead, either, but is temporarily in the state it would be in if it were dead, just as Harry is (no scar, no glasses), but it can return because Harry can (and does). You say that a living soul could not have been there, and yet Harry is a living soul. He asks DD if he's dead and DD says, "On the whole, I think not," which turns out to be true. So if Harry's "living soul" can be there, I don't see why Voldie's can't. Both Harry and Voldie are unconscious; the DEs are gathered anxiously around the fallen Voldemort and he wakes just as Harry does. Granted, we can't know what he experienced. You keep using the term "conscious soul" as if it were part of my argument, but I haven't used that term for what is (for Harry and possibly for Voldie) essentially an out-of-body experience of the mind/soul (indistinguishable in Harry, as DD tells Snape), experienced while he's *un*conscious. Since we're not in Voldie's mind here (the mind link having been severed when the soul bit was destroyed), I don't think we can determine whether Voldie (un)consciously experienced a trip to King's Cross station in flayed-baby form (if so, he would have experienced only pain and helplessness and would not have understood his vision as a preview of his future state) or whether his future state is only part of Harry's vision. My point is only that the creature is not the soul bit, which has been destroyed, but either Voldie's maimed soul or a vision of that soul's future state. I don't see how the text can be read any other way, but I've already presented my canon and you understand the arguments, so I'm not sure what else to say. If Harry's soul could enter this Limbo, to use your term, I don't see why Voldie's couldn't. Part of him (a soul bit) has just been destroyed, along with his link to Harry. Why that should knock Voldie unconscious and send his soul, along with Harry's, to King's Cross is admittedly unclear, but that does seem to be what happened. Maybe he feels the loss of this accidental Horcrux more than the others because it's the next-to-last one and he's becoming vulnerable? And yet if that were the case, he'd feel the death of Nagini, too. Speaking of Nagini, I don't think the results of Harry's self-sacrifice would have been any different if Nagini had been killed at Godric's Hollow instead of Hogwarts. It's the shared drop of blood that keeps Harry alive (he can't die while Voldemort lives), so only the soul bit is destroyed. Even if Voldie had already lost his last true Horcrux, Nagini, his main soul would have been in no danger from the AK that killed the soul bit because the AK didn't rebound. As DD told Harry, Voldie would still have to be killed by a wizard with skill and power after the Horcruxes were destroyed. It would still have required a second confrontation (after the soul bit was killed) to kill Voldie, IMO. The soul bits would not be "existing in limbo" because, as Hermione explains in "The Ghoul in Pajamas," they've all been destroyed (except the one in Nagini). Voldie himself, however, is about three/quarters dead (down to 2/8 or 1/4 of a soul, shared between himself and Nagini), which is perhaps why he can enter King's Cross with Harry (assuming that he does so and the flayed baby is not just a vision of LV's future). Why would "the conscious soul piece" (or Voldie's main soul, as I call it) be part of Harry's vision? Probably for the same reason that Dumbledore is. Harry needs answers. He doesn't need glasses so they don't exist there (nor does his scar because his soul is pure and whole), but he does need, or at least want, clothes, so he receives them. Then he wants answers, so Dumbledore, the only one who knows the answers, appears. Voldemort and his fate are tied up with Harry's, so he appears, too, as part of the truth Harry has been seeking throughout DH. The flayed baby shows Harry what Voldie's future will be if he dies unrepentant. The destroyed soul bit, OTOH, can serve no purpose. It is, AFAICT, annihilated, along with the other soul bits. All that's left is the self-maimed remnant of the main soul. I suppose it's possible that remorse could unite the "destroyed" fragments with the main soul, but, if so, why have we been repeatedly told that the soul bits have been "destroyed" or that they can't exist outside their enchanted containers? I agree that logic isn't JKR's strong point; neither is consistency. Maybe she's being inconsistent again here, but I don't think so. It's clear that the thing under the chair isn't the scar soul bit, which has been destroyed, and Harry says that it's the state of Voldie's soul if he doesn't show remorse. Whether it's logical for his "conscious soul" or "main soul" to be there or not, I don't think any other explanation fits the canon that we're presented in HBP and, especially, DH. You mention that the soul bit in Nagini would prevent Voldemort from "moving on" if Harry had "gone on" himself, but Harry had asked Neville to "kill the snake," and Hermione and Ron were also planning to kill Nagini if Harry failed. Suppose that Harry had chosen to die, to "go on," leaving his own unconscious body, which would become his dead body since his soul had left it. Suppose that Voldemort had remained unconscious, with his maimed soul in limbo (a whimpering, helpless, flayed, abandoned bundle of rags, perhaps not in King's Cross at all but just lying on a floor with nothing around it like Harry when he first arrived--nothing but pain and darkness all around him). Suppose that Neville or Ron or Hermione had then killed Nagini, and Voldemort's body died, giving his mangled soul no way to return to its body. Who would come to help him? Who would Voldemort, who fears death and the dead and hates everyone, summon, and what could they do if they came since, as DD says, "no help is possible"? I think that LV returned to that state when the second AK was deflected onto him and killed him, and he'll remain there for all eternity (unless there's a Judgment Day, which JKR might or might not imagine, but which is not implied in DH). I do realize that I haven't answeed the question of how Voldie got there if he was really there, but that's because we see the scene from Harry's pov and don't know what Voldie experienced while he was unconscious. But that the flayed child is not the soul bit seems clear from the context. The only question, for me, is whether Voldie was really there in his own limbo or whether the flayed child was only a vision of the future that awaited him if he showed no remorse. Carol, hoping this post isn't too repetitive and asking anyone who wants canon support for her arguments to please look upthread From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 00:33:45 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:33:45 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177457 Carol earlier: > > > The soul bits would not be "existing in limbo" because, as Hermione explains in "The Ghoul in Pajamas," they've all been destroyed (except the one in Nagini). Carol again: Sorry! I left out a thought or two here. I meant, the soul bits would not be "existing in limbo" because, as Hermione explains in "The Ghoul in Pajamas," a soul bit that can't return to its enchanted container because that container has been destroyed beyone magical repair can no longer "survive" or "exist" (she uses both words). The soul bits from all the Horcruxes except Nagini no longer exist for this reason. Even the one from Harry's scar has been destroyed, as DD informs us. Harry's soul is now his own and the soul bit could not return to it even if it had not been "killed" by the AK. I can find no evidence that the soul bits are (figuratively) waiting beyond the Veil for the main soul piece, as I originally imagined. They seem to be utterly and permanently destroyed. Carol, thinking of Barty Jr. and wondering whether his "immortal" soul is also utterly annihilated From bawilson at citynet.net Thu Sep 27 01:00:44 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:00:44 -0400 Subject: What if...you do magic when you're 15? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177458 Irene: "As I understand it, all magical children are listed in a book at Hogwarts the day they are born. No one probably knows who's in this book but the Headmaster - so Neville's family would not have known that he was listed until he got the letter. So, even if a witch or wizard did not show signs of magic at a young age, Hogwarts would know that it was there and offer them a place at the school at age 11." Or, as a child who could not do magic would be very out of place at Hogwarts,the Magical Education Bureau would keep an eye on the child and when the magical ability did manifest itself arrange for private tutoring. JKR says that not all Wizardling children in Britain attend Hogwarts; some go abroad to Beaubatons or Durmstrang or elsewhere, and some are homeschooled. The MoM probably has some supervisory activity over the third class to see that they are properly prepared for OWLs and NEWTS. JKR doesn't show it, because it isn't relative to the story, but I'm guessing that there are some kids who are homeschooled through OWLS who come to Hogwarts for NEWTS. Bruce Alan Wilson "The bicycle is the most civilized conveyance known to man. Other forms of transport grow daily more nightmarish. Only the bicycle remains pure in heart."--Iris Murdoch From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 02:47:27 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:47:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177459 Pippin: But as for accepting the facts as Dumbledore states them, who is he going to argue with? Snape's dead, and portrait!Dumbledore is absent. lizzyben: How convenient, Potrait!Dumbledore. IMO he was hiding from Harry cause didn't have the courage to face him & tell him the truth. Right here, right now, I am challenging anyone to explain Dumbledore's Plan in a way that makes sense. The contender must include: the Hallows, the purpose of the will gifts, the reason Snape wasn't informed, purpose of the Seven Potters, DD's failure to provide the Horcrux book or Sword, the purpose of his murder, and his envisioned plan for the Elder Wand. (Note: The Plan CAN'T be to help Voldemort win, even though this is the most likely outcome). Pippin: Me, I loved the book, and the more it's criticized, the more things I find in it to love. There's no lack of mourning rituals, all you have to do is go back and read them again. We have Fawkes's lament, Dumbledore's funeral and Dobby's burial. We don't need to have them over and over again for the sake of every character, at least I don't. It'd be like the RoTK movie, which ends when the ring is destroyed and ends when Aragorn gets married, and ends when Sam gets married, and then when Frodo goes over the sea...but wait, there's more! lizzyben: I didn't mean that there should be 50 separate funerals for every single character who died, but just that there should be *some* ceremonial recognition of the people who had died. Not so much for them, as for the readers. There needs to be an emotional catharsis for the audience - and DH didn't have one. I've got no problem w/death & tragedy, but what bothers me was the lack of closure or resolution of those deaths. People need a mourning period to recognize the loss, honor the dead, and move on. DH seemed to just keep adding to the list of dead in an almost casual manner, w/o providing any resolution at the end of the battle. "Catharsis - The term in drama refers to a sudden emotional breakdown or climax that constitutes overwhelming feelings of great sorrow, pity, laughter or any extreme change in emotion that results in the restoration, renewal and revitalization for living." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catharsis Usually, tragedy is presented in such a way that the audience finds an emotional catharsis. OK, an example would be Dead Poet's Society, where the audience is put through the emotional ringer after a student kills himself, and Keating is fired. But at the end, there is a sense of healing, as the other students grieve together and honor their friend; and they stand on their desks & recite "Captain, My Captain" to honor their teacher. The characters, and the audience, go from sorrow to renewal. From mourning to healing. LOTR is actually another good example. Boromir was sort of a jerk, and he tried to steal the ring, but he also died protecting the hobbits. Even though they are pressed for time, the remaining members of the Fellowship take the time to respectfully bury his body, honor his memory, & recite poems of his homeland. This shows not just a respect for the dead, but a respect for life as well - that each life is precious and worth remembering. The ceremonial ritual provides catharsis & closure for the Fellowship. And in a work of fiction, the ceremony provides catharsis & closure for readers as well. I didn't feel a similar emotional catharsis in DH. The reader is wrung through the emotional wringer as character after character is killed off - but it is mentioned almost in passing, and those characters aren't honored. After the battle, we don't get to see how the Weasleys or Harry or Hermione cope with their loss, how they mourn the people they care about, or how they've changed. Instead, there's a tacked-on saccharine Yay! Happy! ending 20+ years later. Lame. That's not catharsis. So even though Deathly Hallows was all about death, it seemed unable to confront or deal with the actual reality of death. Or grief. Or mourning. Or healing. "Death" was the major theme of the novel, yet it doesn't seem to have resonated w/many people. Instead, people are debating Draco, or the Mauraders, Hermione's parents, etc. The actual main theme seems to cause mostly puzzlement & confusion; instead of inspiration & emotional catharsis. So, if JKR wanted to make a Very Profound Statement about Death, IMO she failed. And IMO the novel even failed to address death at all in a healthy fashion. By that I mean that the novel either used really, really lame platitudes (Dying doesn't hurt a bit! Wow, it's so brave to choose to die, even though death is totally wonderful! Look how happy & smiling dead Lupin, Lily, & Sirius are now! Yay, death!) or just totally ran away from the actual effects that death has upon the living. (No portrayal of the actual grieving process, no ceremonial mourning rituals, no emotional catharsis or closure, no sense of healing). It's yet another weirdness to add to the pile. Deathly Hallows wallowed in Death, but ran away from death at the same time. lizzyben From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Thu Sep 27 04:30:04 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 04:30:04 -0000 Subject: JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make)/Draco In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177460 > Laura wrote: > > > > > Finally, someone pointed out the "she said / he said + > > > > > adverb" problem, something that I had NEVER noticed > > > > > before... > > va32h: > > > but as often as not "said" really is the most > > appropriate word. > > > > Magpie: > > Oh my-there is absolutely *nothing* wrong with using the word > > said. On the contrary, it's what the author *should* use most of > the time. > > Ceridwen: > ... "said" is almost always the perfect word. > It slides under a reader's radar, causing people not to notice > that the words "he said/she said" were even there. Alternatives > should be used sparingly, to signal some sort of change or problem > ("he gasped" or "she cried"). This change signals something to > the reader, that the character is upset or happy or alarmed, so > there is something different going on in the text. > aussie: I picked up Harry Potter because an author recommended JKR's dialogue style to me. - "said" can be used 50% to 70%, - no verb thrown in ("Watch it, Malfoy". Harry drew his wand ...) but still allowing the reader to understand who spoke - about 20% different verbs (yelled, whispered, gurgled) - Use adverbs sparilngly. To continually and frequently use adverbs repeatedly is constantly frustrating. From OctobersChild48 at aol.com Thu Sep 27 06:37:22 2007 From: OctobersChild48 at aol.com (OctobersChild48 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:37:22 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177461 va32h: I have no knowledge of anything regarding Lord of the Rings. Never seen a film or read one of the books. Sandy: Neither have I, so any comparisons between it and HP fall on deaf ears for me. va32h: I'm not talking about mourning within the series - but specifically in terms of DH, there is no mourning for a character whose death actually affects people. Dobby's death is sad, sure, but there's no Mrs. Dobby to worry about how she's going to pay the bills, or little Dobbies having to ponder a life without daddy. It's an "easy" mourning because the characters can just say (essentially) "bummer" and go on about their business. Dealing with Fred's death, or Lupin's death would actually require some sort of effort to you know, think about how that loss affects the other characters and how that would be conveyed in the story. But JKR just takes the easy (lazy) way out yet again. Sandy: I liked the epilogue as it was written - with one exception. My first reaction upon finishing it was; what about George, what about Molly?! The actual ending of the book was totally unsatisfactory. I felt there should have been at least one more chapter dealing with the aftermath. How could she just gloss over the death of Fred like she did? What was life like for George? Twins are a unique dynamic and there was no better example of that than Fred and George. How did Molly deal with the loss of one of her two favorite children? va32h: Of course not. We haven't known all 50 or so "soldiers and civilians" over the course of several books. We have known Fred since book one, and Lupin since book 3 and both of them were deeply important to Harry. So "they died" just doesn't cut it for me, as a reader. And let me stress that I am not asking for 1,000 pages of angst-ridden heartbreak..heartbreak...or a huge dramatic death scene for eve know extremely well how mundane death can be in the midst of a battle. But that should not be an excuse to just gloss over it. Sandy: Just one more chapter would have done it. Dumbledore's funeral was done in one chapter and the same could have been done for Fred. I am not belittling Lupin's death, but Teddy did at least get a mention in the epilogue. Not a word about George. I loved the twins, and was profoundly affected by Fred's death. I was already pissed off by the way she killed him. A wall crumbling on him?! What was the point? So she crumbles a wall on him and kills him and the only other mention of him is his body lying in the Great Hall with the others. Grrrrrrr. The book was incomplete. Two months after the fact I am still mourning the loss of Fred, which is more than anyone in the books seems to have done - all thanks to JKR. Sandy ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From random832 at fastmail.us Thu Sep 27 11:47:37 2007 From: random832 at fastmail.us (Random832) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 07:47:37 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FB9859.3070702@fastmail.us> No: HPFGUIDX 177462 (of spirals, helices, accuracy, and fancy words) Geoff Bannister wrote: > You still haven't answered my previous question as to why you > would prefer Hermione to speak about "a characteristic helical > pattern". If she, as the pedantic bookworm that she is, is satisfied > with 'spirals', who are we mere mortals to argue with her? > :-))) And of course, all this is ignoring the fact that the characteristic pattern could very well be a spiral rather than a helix. From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 27 12:16:08 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:16:08 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: <46FB9859.3070702@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177463 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > (of spirals, helices, accuracy, and fancy words) > > Geoff Bannister wrote: > > You still haven't answered my previous question as to why you > > would prefer Hermione to speak about "a characteristic helical > > pattern". If she, as the pedantic bookworm that she is, is satisfied > > with 'spirals', who are we mere mortals to argue with her? > > :-))) > > And of course, all this is ignoring the fact that the characteristic > pattern could very well be a spiral rather than a helix. Geoff: One definition from the Web is: "In mathematics, a spiral is a curve which turns around some central point or axis, getting progressively closer to or farther from it, depending on which way one follows the curve." ...while a second is: "A plane curve traced by a point circling about the center but at increasing distances from the centre". As has been stated earlier in the thread, it is a TWO-dimensional curve. So, unless the steam coming from the Amortentia potion which Hermione is describing comes off and stays flat just above the surface - like the grooves in a gramophone record - which it isn't doing, then it is technically a helix but is invariably called 'spiralling'. As I have said already, it is a non-mathematical vernacular usage which we are seeing here. From margdean at erols.com Thu Sep 27 14:24:19 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 10:24:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make References: Message-ID: <46FBBD13.E6C3CB7E@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177464 Geoff Bannister wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Random832 wrote: > > And of course, all this is ignoring the fact that the characteristic > > pattern could very well be a spiral rather than a helix. > > Geoff: > One definition from the Web is: > "In mathematics, a spiral is a curve which turns around some > central point or axis, getting progressively closer to or farther > from it, depending on which way one follows the curve." > > ...while a second is: > > "A plane curve traced by a point circling about the center but > at increasing distances from the centre". As has been stated > earlier in the thread, it is a TWO-dimensional curve. > > So, unless the steam coming from the Amortentia potion which > Hermione is describing comes off and stays flat just above the > surface - like the grooves in a gramophone record - which it > isn't doing, then it is technically a helix but is invariably called > 'spiralling'. Or it could be forming a spiral pattern in a plane perpendicular to the surface of the potion. Can't tell without seeing it. --Margaret Dean From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Thu Sep 27 15:24:35 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 15:24:35 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: <46FB9859.3070702@fastmail.us> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177465 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. If a spiral is rising then it's not a spiral anymore, it's 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. I also think in book 1 it would be better if Marcus Flint, the Slytherin Quidditch Captain, were in his fifth year not his sixth, that way in book 3 poor Marcus won't be in his 8'th year. In book 5 in the final astronomy exam Harry is looking at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only be seen near sunrise or sunset and this was about midnight, and Orion is a winter constellation and it was June. If I were her editor I'd suggest she change it to Saturn and Scorpius and I'll bet she's be willing to change those two words. I'd also ask her if the sorting hat stool had 3 legs or 4, there seems to be some confusion about that. I am also a little uncomfortable with the Harry having only 2 living relatives bit; although not mathematically imposable it is astronomically unlikely. I know all this is all nitpicking, but sometimes it's fun to nitpick. Eggplant From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Thu Sep 27 15:55:16 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:55:16 -0400 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) Message-ID: <001901c8011e$d03ffc00$3062d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 177466 va32h said: >>At some point we're just talking in circles...I'm glad you like the book, really. I just don't, and the more I think about it, the more disappointed I am. << And that is my problem as well. The further I get away from my first reading (I have not even attempted to read it again....uggh) the more disappointed I am and the more just bloody horrible it is. I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the moment. In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list because it just makes me more and more disappointed, frustrated, and angry all the time. CathyD [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bartl at sprynet.com Thu Sep 27 16:22:45 2007 From: bartl at sprynet.com (Bart Lidofsky) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:22:45 -0400 (GMT-04:00) Subject: [HPforGrownups] JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make)/Draco Message-ID: <18964577.1190910165656.JavaMail.root@mswamui-andean.atl.sa.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177467 aussie: >I picked up Harry Potter because an author recommended JKR's >dialogue style to me. > >- "said" can be used 50% to 70%, >- no verb thrown in ("Watch it, Malfoy". Harry drew his wand ...) >but still allowing the reader to understand who spoke >- about 20% different verbs (yelled, whispered, gurgled) >- Use adverbs sparilngly. To continually and frequently use adverbs >repeatedly is constantly frustrating. Bart: Me recommends this well website to go to: http://www.plainlanguage.gov/examples/humor/writegood.cfm Bart From allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk Thu Sep 27 18:18:13 2007 From: allthecoolnamesgone at yahoo.co.uk (allthecoolnamesgone) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:18:13 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: <001901c8011e$d03ffc00$3062d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177468 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" wrote: > > va32h said: > >>At some point we're just talking in circles...I'm glad you like the > book, really. I just don't, and the more I think about it, the more > disappointed I am. << > > And that is my problem as well. The further I get away from my first reading (I have not even attempted to read it again....uggh) the more disappointed I am and the more just bloody horrible it is. I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the moment. > > In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list because it just makes me more and more disappointed, frustrated, and angry all the time. > > CathyD > It seems to be a common reaction. Perhaps we were all carried along at first by the hype and the need to know the end. I was disappointed at the end of the book and as others have said missed the 'catharsis' chapter. But it's absence sent me on a search for it which was eventually met by Newsgroups,Fan Fiction and other literature. It was a painful process though which did leave me somewhat emotionally disturbed for some weeks and that to seems to have been a common reaction from reading others experiences. I feel now that the biggest impact that HP has had on my life is to get me reading more widely than I did before. I have also dipped into areas of knowledge such as Philosophy and Psychology that I had on the whole not visited before. Those outcomes are good even if I now find the series less satisfying than I did on July 22nd. allthecoolnamesgone From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 27 18:25:03 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:25:03 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177469 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "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. If a spiral is rising then it's not a spiral > anymore, it's 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. Geoff: I have pointed out already that the average UK English speaker probably wouldn't know what a helix was; you and I do because of our Maths background. Until I got to the Sixth Form, I only knew Helix to be the name of a well-known manufacturer of mathematical drawing instruments! So, in the vernacular, we talk about spiral staircases, spirals on railways to gain height, smoke spiralling upwards. I do the same because I follow the general and don't think helically. :-) And I suspect that JKR's editor falls into the same category. Eggplant: > I am also a little uncomfortable with the Harry > having only 2 living relatives bit; although not mathematically > imposable it is astronomically unlikely. Geoff: Surprisingly, for once, I agree with you. Like me, I think you have been a member of the group for some years and may remember that, shortly after OOTP was published, there was a theory that Mark Evans, mentioned briefly in the first chapter, was a relative of Lily Potter, a theory which was denied by JKR a little later. I wrote a long post which appeared on 17/11/03 as message 85255 under the title "The Whole Evans Theory". The part which is germane to this discussion is that the post was triggered by a comment from Tonks: > > I do not deny the possibility of a distant relative. But still, if > > Petunia is Harry's 'ONLY' relative... doesn't this make for > > something interesting? I don't propose to use the entire post but I am quoting from a section which might be of interest.. I have mentioned on a couple of occasions that when my father died in 1994 and I went through his address book to notify people, I "discovered" a family relative about whom I knew nothing; the lady concerned was a first cousin of my father and the link led back to my great grandparents. It is fairly obvious that Dumbledore was very close to James and Lily Potter. "'Naturally,' said Professor McGonagall. `James Potter told Dumbledore that Black would die rather than tell where they were, that Black was planning to go into hiding himself and yet, Dumbledore remained worried. I remember him offering to be the Potter's Secret-Keeper himself.'" (POA "The Marauder's Map" UK p.153 UK edition). This implies very close friendship. So Dumbledore would know from conversations with Lily that Petunia was her nearest relative. But would it follow that he knew there were /no/ other relatives? Would the matter of more distant relatives of Lily have surfaced in conversation with Dumbledore? Do we discuss distant and half- forgotten family members with close friends? Not often. Dumbledore is intelligent and knowledgeable but not omniscient. To be fair, he may not be aware of the existence of other family members. Let's consider a similar situation to the one I experienced personally. Petunia's comments imply that the Evans were a magical family. "'But for my mother and father, oh no, it was Lily this and Lily that, they were proud of having a witch in the family'" (PS "The Keeper of the Keys" p.44 UK edition). If you go back to, say, Lily's great- grandparents and trace back down other arms on the family tree, there are probably members of the family who Lily may not have remembered or who were distant enough either genealogically or geographically to not register consciously with her; hence the possibility of Mark Evans being a distant relative. Eggplant: > I know all this is all nitpicking, but sometimes it's fun to nitpick. Geoff: Surprisingly, for a SECOND time, I agree with you. :-)) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Sep 27 18:46:53 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:46:53 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177470 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "allthecoolnamesgone" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Cathy Drolet" > wrote: > > > > va32h said: > > >>At some point we're just talking in circles...I'm glad you like the > > book, really. I just don't, and the more I think about it, the more > > disappointed I am. << CathyD: > > And that is my problem as well. The further I get away from my > first reading (I have not even attempted to read it again....uggh) > the more disappointed I am and the more just bloody horrible it is. > I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the moment. > > In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list because > it just makes me more and more disappointed, frustrated, and angry > all the time. allthecoolnamesgone: > It seems to be a common reaction. Perhaps we were all carried along > at first by the hype and the need to know the end. I was disappointed > at the end of the book and as others have said missed the 'catharsis' > chapter. But it's absence sent me on a search for it which was > eventually met by Newsgroups,Fan Fiction and other literature. It was > a painful process though which did leave me somewhat emotionally > disturbed for some weeks and that to seems to have been a common > reaction from reading others experiences. Geoff: It's interesting but having had mixed feelings initially, I have now come down largely on the side of liking DH, having just completed my third reading. Like allthecoolnamesgone, my first reading left me in a kind of limbo (an HP book reader's King's Cross?). But subsequent readings, taken very slowly have settled my views more. I really only have two gripes about the structure of the ending. I said very early after the list reopened that I felt the epilogue was skimpy and unsatisfactory - a view to which I still hold. But like others, I have read fan fiction over the years and can occasionally pull up an alternative future to keep me content. The second gripe is, as others have also commented on, is the lack of closure. For me, JKR ended GOF and HBP on an excellent note. Dumbledore's eulogy for Cedric - brief, poignant and also uplifting, ended the book brilliantly and Dumbledore's funeral in HBP gave everyone, readers and fictional characters alike, the opportunity to say goodbye properly. I would have liked a longer ending to DH where the students and staff gathered for a memorial service of remembrance and maybe, although he would hate it, an acknowledgement of Harry's part in the outcome. And possibly, no epilogue at all.... From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 18:49:12 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 18:49:12 -0000 Subject: The Deathly Hallows: Myth and Reality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177471 --- "prep0strus" wrote: > > I've been thinking about the Hallows, and how strange > they are, both as items to include as part of a > children's fable, and as real objects. I really wonder > about what JKR's thought process was in including them, > so I'd welcome any thoughts people might have on the > matter. > > ... bboyminn: I want to interject a point that I think has gotten lost in this thread. The Three Brothers were real, however, the 'Legend of the Three Brothers' is merely a myth of fairytale that has sprung up around them. As an illustration, let's say a simply Englishman is walking though the moors late at night and sees some glowing swamp gas. He then, frightened out of his wits, rushes back to the local pub to tell friends and family a rousing tale of having encountered ['insert name of magical creature here']. My point is, while we might derive moral messages or at least stimulate moral thought and analysis from the 'Legend of the Three Brothers', it is not in fact reality. It is symbolism based in reality. Likely the three brothers did exist, likely they were brilliant wizards of the highest order, and likely they did invent the three object in question. But we must notice that none of the real objects quite lives up to the fairytale, any more than glowing swamp gas lives up to a rousing tale of an encounter with a magical creature on the moors. I think in analyzing the Hallows we can symbolically interpret the Legend, but we must also be aware that the Legend is just that, and does not truly reflect the reality of the situation. The Wand was a very powerful wand brilliantly conceived and brilliantly executed, but it was not the Wand of Legend. Nor did it bestow the power implied by the Legend. It did not make you invincible as the unnatural and untimely death of many of its owner will attest. It did not make you Master of Death. But it could make you an overconfident braggart who didn't have the good sense to know when to keep his mouth shut. In a sense, that is how Dumbledore mastered the wand. He was able to quietly use it, and to further restrain himself from using the ultimate power of the wand to cause death. Only Harry realized that the Stone could only be used to temporarily view the dead under appropriate circumstance. I could not actually be used to literally bring people back, and it should never be used to hold the death and 'at peace' to the pail imitation of life that the Stone provided. Harry used the Cloak for mischief making and in dangerous situations as an aid, but he could have applied it to much more selfish and darker purposes. But he didn't. As I see this discussion go on, I see people treating the Hallows of Legend as if they were the Hallows of Reality, that is simply not true, and is also made crystal clear in the books. I'm not sure if my comment adds, subtracts, or alters the discussion in any valuable way, but I think it is an important factor to consider. Steve/bboyminn From AllieS426 at aol.com Thu Sep 27 19:04:40 2007 From: AllieS426 at aol.com (allies426) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:04:40 -0000 Subject: Winky - another loose end Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177472 Whatever happened to Winky? There is no mention of her with the swarming house-elves at the Battle of Hogwarts. (Thinking about it, I bet the Hogwarts house-elves alone outnumber the Death Eaters, even without any wizards!) Did she spend the battle drinking butterbeer in the kitchen, or did she rally and help defend the castle, even though she still felt the Crouches were her masters? Allie From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 19:19:21 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:19:21 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: <001901c8011e$d03ffc00$3062d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177473 CathyD wrote: > And that is my problem as well. The further I get away from my first reading (I have not even attempted to read it again....uggh) the more disappointed I am and the more just bloody horrible it is. I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the moment. > > In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list because it just makes me more and more disappointed, frustrated, and angry all the time. Carol responds: I understand your frustration, and I confess that it took me awhile to come to terms with the manipulative Dumbledore of DH. I would vastly have preferred a living Snape to a dead one (though the public vindication and Albus Severus helped). But it seems strange to me to condemn a book for not meeting our expectations, for not being the book we would have written. It's like condemning the HP films for not duplicating the books without considering that a film is a different medium with differing requirements and conventions. Maybe you should try reading the book a second time, knowing that things won't turn out as you hoped but trying to appreciate it on its own terms. "Bloody horrible" seems like an exagerration to me. Sure, it has flaws, including plot holes and inconsistencies. Sure, some of our favorite characters died, but we knew that was bound to happen. Sure, some of the things we anticipated from the interviews didn't happen, but does it really matter, for example, that no character performed magic late in life? Can we really judge the book by its failure to conform to expectations based on interviews? Can we fairly and realistically expect a book to echo our own religious, philosophical or political views and judge it as "bloody horrible" if it doesn't? Good heavens! If that's the case, I should believe that no good book was ever written because no author I've ever encountered shares all of my views. (My subjective judgment of a book, my liking the story and identifying with the characters or the author's implied philosophy, is, of course, no indication of the book's value as a piece of writing or a cultural artifact.) Regarding the catharsis that some posters feel is missing from DH, I was already emotionally exhausted by all the deaths, especially Dobby's and Snape's, and by Percy's grief for the brother who had just forgiven him, a moment more moving to me than any funeral. I realize it's all subjective, but what would another funeral or memorial service have added? We've already had one grand funeral in HBP and one simple funeral in DH. What would be accomplished by duplicating either type of funeral for other characters? And if JKR showed Fred's funeral, but not Tonks' and Lupin's presumably joint funeral, or vice versa, wouldn't readers who favored those characters have felt cheated? And would a mass memorial service like the one performed for victims of 9/11 have moved us in the way an individual funeral would? Personally, I wish some mention had been made of Snape's body being moved to be with the others, or of a separate service honoring Hogwarts' most unfairly maligned and misunderstood headmaster, but I understand that JKR was focusing on Harry. It's enough (for me) that he told Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories, that he publicly vindicated him, and that he named his second son after him and Dumbledore, the other imperfect and forgiven headmaster. There are two ways to deal with disappointment in a book. The first is to reread it on its own terms, trying to understand and accept it and enjoy at least some parts of it. ("Moby Dick," for example, wasn't at all what I expected, and I didn't come to love it until the third time through.) The second is to put it behind you and go on to something else, preferably without any expectations that will ruin the experience of reading the book if the author "fails" to meet them. I'm curious. Did those of you who hated the last book find *anything* at all to like or admire about it? Humor? Suspense? Terror? Grief? Remorse? A real villain instead of a cardboard one? A flawed mentor instead of a perfect one? Harry's ability to see certain characters (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? Anything at all? Forgive the cliche, but I found the book an emotional roller coaster ride, full of surprises, moving from laughter or excitement to almost unbearable grief and back again (and occasional moments when I could gleefully claim that I was right, along with others when I had to concede defeat but note with satisfaction that JKR got around the obstacles I had foreseen). Favorite moments off the top of my head: Dobby whanging Mundungus on the head with a saucepan (even I can appreciate slapstick humor if it involves the right characters), the doe Patronus, Ron's destruction of the locket Horcrux, a whole chapter devoted to Snape's backstory (and the reference to him in the chapter title as "the Prince"), Neville killing Nagini, Albus Severus and Harry's description of Snape as probably the bravest man he ever knew. . . . Carol, happy that HRH and Luna and Neville survived, that Ron overcame his self-doubts so valiantly, that Harry "sacrificed" himself without having to die and destroyed Voldie without having to kill him, that Snape was vindicated, and that Kreacher was understood and respected without being freed, which might well have killed him From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 19:33:46 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:33:46 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177474 Carol earlier: > Favorite moments off the top of my head: Dobby whanging Mundungus on the head with a saucepan (even I can appreciate slapstick humor if it involves the right characters), Carol again: Kreacher, not Dobby! Of course, I know the difference. Sorry to waste a post, but I wanted to forestall any offlist corrections from well-intentioned fellow posters. Carol, glad that the list is relatively inactive now so she can safely waste a post :-) From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 19:48:07 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:48:07 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177475 --- "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. If a > spiral is rising then it's not a spiral > ... > bboyminn: Oh I really hate to do this because I think you've reached the lowest point in a discussion when you are forced to get out the dictionary. As it turns out, a Spiral is a Helix in a certain context. American Heritage 3rd Edition - CD-ROM Spiral - a.) ... b.) A three-dimensional curve that turns around an axis at a constant or continuously varying distance while moving parallel to the axis; A HELIX. c.) Something having the form of such a curve: a spiral of black smoke ... Spiral in this context is in common usage, and a spiral of smoke is a common expression. Technically you are right, but common overrides technical when it comes to writing. > Eggplant: > I also think in book 1 it would be better if Marcus > Flint, the Slytherin Quidditch Captain, were in his > fifth year not his sixth, that way in book 3 poor > Marcus won't be in his 8'th year. bboyminn: Hasn't this been fixed in newer version of the books? > Eggplant: > > In book 5 in the final astronomy exam Harry is looking > at Venus and Orion, but Venus can only be seen near > sunrise or sunset and this was about midnight, and > Orion is a winter constellation and it was June. ... bboyminn: Shaun Hately did an astological analysis of the particular scene based on three sets of coordinates I gave him for likely locations of Hogwarts. I think the result was that while it was very difficult, it was not totally impossible for the book to be correct. > Eggplant: > > I'd also ask her if the sorting hat stool had 3 legs > or 4, there seems to be some confusion about that. bboyminn: I noticed that too, but then realized that we have no way of knowing it was the same stool. McGonnagal my just grab the first available stool. >Eggplant: > I am also a little uncomfortable with the Harry having > only 2 living relatives bit; although not mathematically > imposable it is astronomically unlikely. > bboyminn: As I have pointed out many times, I am related to Lymann Hall, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Though, you must also consider that no one in my immediate family has live in the USA prior to the 20th century. The path between myself and Lymann Hall is a long and twisted one, but technically, we are related. But I absolutely assure you that if myself or anyone in my immediate family were suddenly orphaned, ABSOLUTELY NO ONE in the Hall family would be willing to take us in. It's not that Vernon or Dudley, and Petunia are Harry's only technically living relatives, it is that they are his only relatives of any real significants. Further, they are EXTREMELY CLOSE relatives. If one of my nephews was suddenly orphaned are people more likely to consider their blood uncles or aunts, or are the more likely to consider tracking down some member of the Hall family? Yes, it would be possible to track down some obscure distant relative of Harry's, but they would probably be total strangers and not very likely to take him in. Especially not when a blood Aunt is available. I think people are taking the 'only living relative' statement either too literally, or in other cases, too generally. From any reasonable and practical perspective Petunia is Harry's only relative. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Sep 27 21:11:21 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:11:21 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177476 Lizzyben: > > I didn't feel a similar emotional catharsis in DH. The reader is wrung > through the emotional wringer as character after character is killed > off - but it is mentioned almost in passing, and those characters > aren't honored. After the battle, we don't get to see how the Weasleys > or Harry or Hermione cope with their loss, how they mourn the people > they care about, or how they've changed. Instead, there's a tacked-on > saccharine Yay! Happy! ending 20+ years later. Lame. That's not > catharsis. Pippin: The catharsis chapter for me was King's Cross. The death that's supposed to affect us, or that deeply affected me at least, was the death of hope for Voldemort's soul. That was the overwhelming tragedy that Jo made me feel -- not the loss of so many lives, however deeply missed, but the waste of that one soul. My understanding, and of course I don't know if this is what Jo had in mind, is that Voldemort's soul, being sovereign, can not be rescued from the prison he created of it. He, like the Albania in which he once took refuge, is a closed-border state. For me that's heart-breaking. Harry and Dumbledore can do nothing more, not even sympathize. There is no connection possible because he's rejected the ability to feel anything but hate and anger, emotions of which Harry and Dumbledore, in their more perfect state, are no longer capable. I think it would be easy to mistake transcendence for coldness. Harry was so devastated by the death of Cedric, yet each subsequent death seems to affect him less. But it isn't, IMO, that Jo has forgotten to make him care about losing people, it's that to him they're not really lost, or that he grows to understand Luna's serene confidence that nothing can truly be taken from her. The quotation in the front of the book explains it better: "This is the comfort of friends, that though they may be said to die, yet their friendship and society are, in the best sense, ever present, because immortal." If you read the book as fairy tales are meant to be read, never finishing without starting again ( "Another story, sister! Another story!") you will encounter that quote as a coda to the epilogue, along with the poem from Aeschylus which seems to lament Snape's death. Pippin "And some old witch in Bath had a book that you could *never stop reading*" -- CoS From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 21:33:57 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 21:33:57 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177477 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > But it seems strange to me to > condemn a book for not meeting our expectations, for not being the > book we would have written. If I could have written these books myself, I wouldn't have read them! I was open to any resolution of the story, frankly. That doesn't mean I have to like what I got, does it? Expectations are part of human life. So is fooling yourself. People get into relationships thinking they know someone and are later surprised to find that someone is abusive, for example. The harsher judges among us might think it's stupid, but it happens quite often. Sometimes the abused even make excuses for their tormentors, for very complex reasons. I also don't have to say we bring our own experiences and viewpoint to reading a book, or to any enterprise. I might like some themes and authors more than other people like them. I realized long ago that I'm not going to change anyone's mind when there is an emotional connection to an idea. There are very few rational people in the world, anyway, according to Kiersey. I like to experience different perspectives, but also like to know the basis of the view, whether it's clear-eyed or seen through rose-colored glasses, for example. There are expectations and there are prejudices. I did not like HBP. I felt that Snape's character was reduced to the point only a black-and-white story could be told about him; that Harry didn't really learn anything valuable from Dumbledore, was validated for lying and cheating, and showed no emotional growth even though he almost killed Draco; that the romance themes in the book were poorly handled and demeaned everyone involved; that Slytherin's Slughorn was yet another unpleasant representation of that House; that needless cruelty permeated JKR's world, as shown in the cave; that the Ministry was once again hapless yet sinister; that Voldemort was as disappointing as a villain could be, given his sociopathology somehow based on genetics. If found the moral messages of HBP to be quite dubious. So, my expectations for the seventh book were somewhat low. JKR managed to fall below even those abysmal expectations with DH. Why did I bother to read it? One reason: I liked Snape's character and wanted to know how he ended up. I had hope; unreasonable, perhaps, but there it was, and it even carried over to other characters besides Snape. What I got in DH was a book that lauded stupidity, instinct, breeding ("blood" and house), passivity, and loyalty over learning, planning, choice, effort, and individual responsibility; that threw out or literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly and weak); that seems oblivious to its own double standards for heroes versus bad guys, not to mention lessened standards for female characters (Hermione the gatherer and food preparer); and perhaps worst of all, was put together so sloppily, with plotholes, deus ex machina galore, 180 degree changes in character (Kreacher, Snape, Dumbledore to some extent), differing degrees of protection on Horcruxes, echoes of other works (locket=one ring, Molly=Ripley), too much teasing about Dumbledore's past, and groan, on and on and on. So, JKR did not fail to meet my expectations. She just fell far below my standards for a viable piece of fiction and far away from my personal convictions. I don't think she should have to fit my worldview, or that any work should. That should not preclude me from criticizing the worldview that I find in her work. Did I like anything about DH? Well, while I was reading it, as long as I was able to suspend disbelief and frustration with just how dumb the Trio was, I enjoyed the action scenes. They read like they were written for a movie. Funny thing. I honestly didn't feel much else, except twinges of admiration at George for his attitude towards his lost ear, sorrow at Dobby's funeral, applause for Luna and Neville, the throwaway heroes, and ... that's all I can think of. The Prince's Story left me cold as it was cursory and introduced more contradictions, Dumbledore's story made me hate him, Draco and the Malfoys (not the band) confused me, the rest... eh. Addressing the children's books argument, I agree that the first three books were children's books. GOF was more nuanced and thus more fun for me, as an adult. My favorite book is OOTP. It introduced tremendous complexity to a number of characters, and was the book that drew me into HP fandom. The last two books: children's books, after all, and then hopefully you are reading them with children to follow-up the questions they raise. I don't want to read DH a second time, as you encourage. Why should I make the effort to read it again when I disliked it so much the first time, a dislike that grows with each consideration? I am not looking for small moments to enjoy. I am looking at overall message and execution. I do not admire either in DH. I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant." This is funny to me, since ... what are expectations, after all? For example: > Harry's ability to see certain characters > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? I don't see this. He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape clearly. He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he understands him. > It's enough (for me) that > he told Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories Did he? When? In the big dueling scene? > that he publicly vindicated him It read more to me that he was rubbing into Voldemort's face that Snape was really Dumbledore's man all along and that Snape loved Harry's mother, so there, Voldemort ... like Voldemort even cared! Oh, yeah, Voldemort did care; somewhere along the line, he told Snape a pureblood woman would have been better for him (sorry for the sarcasm, but I can't help it here). > and that he named his second son after him and > Dumbledore, the other imperfect and forgiven headmaster. Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else? Had Harry never before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was? Al is 11 years old, after all. (I don't want to get into Dumbledore and Harry's relationship, frankly... it's another whole discussion.) My point is that some people can read a lot into very little, can even inject events and messages which may not be there. I envy people the ability to do that, but I am not going to do it myself. And I hope you realize that am not personally criticizing you, who I respect. I just find extrapolations of data interesting. > There are two ways to deal with disappointment in a book. The first > is to reread it on its own terms, trying to understand and accept > it and enjoy at least some parts of it. ("Moby Dick," for example, > wasn't at all what I expected, and I didn't come to love it until > the third time through.) The second is to put it behind you and go > on to something else, preferably without any expectations that will > ruin the experience of reading the book if the author "fails" to > meet them. Yes, love it or leave it. My mother's been saying that to me all my life. I say yet another way is to critically examine a tremendously popular piece of fiction based on whatever criteria you feel to be reasonable or elucidative. I'm an American. Freedom of speech and all that. So, there it is. What I don't like about saying these things on this forum is that either someone will feel I have to be saved from my own opinions and become a born-again DH-evangelist, or someone will take the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those instead of addressing the whole thing. Such is life. lealess From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 22:00:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:00:56 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177478 Lealess: > So, there it is. What I don't like about saying these things on this > forum is that either someone will feel I have to be saved from my own > opinions and become a born-again DH-evangelist, or someone will take > the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those > instead of addressing the whole thing. Such is life. Alla: Moving the last paragraph of your post to be the first one to reply. Sorry. You do not like saying it because someone may address one point instead of whole thing? What if I find only one or two or three points disagreeable? Obviously I am not going to argue with your dislike of the book, because indeed how can we debate perceptions, but I certainly want to adress this point. Lealess: > I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they > all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the > writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant." This > is funny to me, since ... what are expectations, after all? > > For example: > carol: > > Harry's ability to see certain characters > > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? > Lealess: > I don't see this. He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus > because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape > clearly. He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably > because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he understands him. Carol: > > It's enough (for me) that > > he told Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories Lealess: > Did he? When? In the big dueling scene? Carol: > > that he publicly vindicated him > Lealess: > It read more to me that he was rubbing into Voldemort's face that > Snape was really Dumbledore's man all along and that Snape loved > Harry's mother, so there, Voldemort ... like Voldemort even cared! > Oh, yeah, Voldemort did care; somewhere along the line, he told Snape > a pureblood woman would have been better for him (sorry for the > sarcasm, but I can't help it here). > > > and that he named his second son after him and > > Dumbledore, the other imperfect and forgiven headmaster. Lealess: > Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else? Had Harry never > before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was? Al is 11 years > old, after all. (I don't want to get into Dumbledore and Harry's > relationship, frankly... it's another whole discussion.) > > My point is that some people can read a lot into very little, can > even inject events and messages which may not be there. I envy > people the ability to do that, but I am not going to do it myself. > And I hope you realize that am not personally criticizing you, who I > respect. I just find extrapolations of data interesting. Alla: So I just want to strongly disagree that the praise of DH means wish fulfillment or filling in the blanks for what JKR meant to do but did not. I left in that exchange between you and Carol (hoping that I correctly attributed Carol's words and yours) for a reason. Say everything that Carol said is not correct ( for the sake of argument only,Carol). I mean, obviously with completed canon we cannot say what is correct, or not, every reader's imagination, expectation, reading is different. But say that everything that Carol argued is not what JKR intended and you are right, Harry did not publicly vindicate the Snape, etc, etc, did not see Snape and Draco clearly, etc. I mean, no I cannot say it even for the sake of argument, I think it is at least clear that Harry somehow changed his view about Snape, no? But say Harry did not experience any profound heart change about Snape and Draco, he just respects Snape for his bravery and still thinks they are the biggest gits on Earth. That IS what you read in canon, yes? My point is that I consider Harry change of heart or NOT change of heart towards Snape and Draco to be so very **tiny** part of the story that I do not care either way. I think Carol's reading is plausible and yours is plausible too. But to me Harry Potter books had **NEVER** been the stories of Draco and Snape OR the stories of Slytherin House fall and redemption. To me they had always been stories about **Harry Potter** first and foremost, and everybody else ( Yes, I know Snape is important to the plot, but I still think of him same way as other characters) is just a supporting player on Harry's journey. So, what I was looking for in DH just as every other book is the satisfying resolution for Harry's journey first and foremost. I believe I got it all there straight on the page, I do not think it is wish fulfillment. I got Harry fighting, growing, falling in love, experiencing tremendous loss, grieving, laughing, I got all of that in tremendous amounts. I am happy indeed. So, no, not wish fullfilment, except maybe in a sense that I got Harry survive. Obviously JMO, Alla From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 22:06:56 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:06:56 -0000 Subject: Judgement Day and Pietism vs. Calvinism (Formerly Re: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177479 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I think that LV returned to that state when the second AK was > deflected onto him and killed him, and he'll remain there for all > eternity (unless there's a Judgment Day, which JKR might or might not > imagine, but which is not implied in DH). > Gary B. Carol, actually I think that the canon has many references to a judgement day. The most obvious is - as many have pointed out, inscribed on the tomb of Harry's parents is "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (DH, ch 16, AmEd, p. 328)which is from 1 Corinthians 15:26. This is not a common quotation within the context of the famous description of Paul of the resurrection and the second coming. The entire passage ends with the more familiar "Death, where is thy sting?" from Paul. Resurrection promised eternal life after the end-time -- therefore, no one should fear death. This is a message that clearly Tom Riddle missed given his life and his overwhelming fear of death even to the extent of splitting his soul to 'cheat' death. Obviously not well understood by the brothers in the tale inside of DH. As had been pointed out several times, Harry actually misunderstands the inscription upon reading it and gets very upset at what he sees as a Death Eater statement. Perhaps from Muggles Sunday school or her extra readings, Hermione does not-- "It doesn't mean defeating death in the way the Death Eaters mean it, Harry," said Hermione, her voice gentle. "It means . . . you know . . . living beyond death. Living after death." (Ibid.) By the end of the book, Harry has not only come to understand its meaning, but he acts without fearing death at least twice to his ultimate and more than a bit lucky triumph. His discussions in the woods with the four dead who express no regrets at their choices and death reinforces his will. He is the good child of his self- sacrificing mother in the end. This knowledge becomes his secret weapon against LV (regardless of blood, wands, old magic, etc.) ? HP cannot beat LV one on one, but perhaps he can through self- sacrifice. Ranging a bit -- Reading the recent discusions of Rowling and Calvinism, I was wondering if those involved thought of an earlier Bible verse also found in the cemetery in DH, chapter 16 on Dumbledore's mother's and sister's tomb -- "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (DH, AmEd, p 325). This is taken from the King James Bible, Matthew 6:21 and Luke 12:34 and is a part of the Sermon on the Mount. Among the many messages of the Sermon are about how a faithful person is supposed to live, how choices must be made to live that life, and what the implications are of living faithfully. These are more central tenets of the German Pietists who wrote at the same time as lawyer John Calvin. According to my wife, a teacher of the reformed tradition in a seminary, their vision has passed down to us through Whitefield and the Wesleys to rather overwhelming numbers today. They stressed emotions, choices, and redemption rather in contrast to the extreme Calvinism of the Dutch and TULIP with total depavity of the body/soul/intellect/will, limited atonement (Christ died only for saving the elect), unconditional election, etc. Rather hard to find a real TULIP Calvinist nowadays although post-modern literary criticism sometimes comes across as such -- Harry is the hero, so he must win in the end. Yes, perhaps, however, the journey is what keeps readers, not the ending itself. I would argue that Harry's and Draco's lives over the seven books illustrate more a pietist view than a Calvinist one although in a children's book this is all perhaps overboard. Especially as our very emotional teenagers illustrate in the books -- everyone can make bad choices and good choices -- witness our Harry using a forbidden curse at one point on Callow in DH or the unnecessarily violent reactions of five Gryffindors (Harry, Ron, Hermione, George and Fred) against the racist comments, but still just words of Draco in GoF -- the key is where that they wind up by the end. They all fight for and one dies in defense of the good cause. The point is not what church Rowling may or may not attend or even what she may believe or say today. I buy into the school that it says it is more fruitful to focus on what the text of book says to a reader. However, I do concede one major point to the Calvinist interpretation -- although Slytherin Draco demonstrates that the 'bad' can elect not to kill and thus show their inner self is not Death Eater as well as reveal something of changing paths in their later actions, I just wish Rowling had shown a single Gryffindor 'choose' to go over to the Death Eaters to factor this into the discussion. I had hoped for such a shocker in DH, Seamus perhaps, or short of that, the ridiculous Romilda Vane or the Ravenclaw Cho -- as a potential Harry betrayer. Peter Pettigrew is perhaps the only one (DH, ch 33, AmEd. p. 672 finally settled this question, I think). Gary B. (my apologies for ranging a bit wide and far.) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 22:26:31 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:26:31 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177480 Carol earlier: > > It's enough (for me) that he told Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories > Lealess: > Did he? When? In the big dueling scene? Carol responds: It's easy to miss the moment if you read the book only once, but, no, I'm not referring to the big dueling scene (in which the public vindication that I mentioned separately is prominent). I'm referring to this passage, which occurs after the Battle of Hogwarts: "But first he owed an explanation to Ron and Hermione, who had stuck with him for so long, and who deserved the truth. Painstakingly he recounted what he had seen in the Pensieve and what had happened in the forest, and they had not even begun to express all their shock and amazement when at last they arrived at the place to which they had been walking. . . ." (DH Am. ed. 746; if you have the Bloomsbury edition, it's near the end of "the Flaw in the Plan," midway through the second paragraph after Peeves's little "victory song"). So, yes. Harry "painstakingly" tells Ron and Hermione about Snape's memories and they react with "shock and amazement." JKR doesn't retell the story, which would be redundant and anticlimactic, but we do know that Harry tells them "the truth" about Snape (and his walk to what he thought would be his death, accompanied by loved ones who, perhaps significantly, do not include Dumbledore). Carol, noting the double association, here and at the beginning of "The Forest Again," of the phrase "the truth" with Snape's Pensieve memories From lealess at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 22:43:19 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:43:19 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177481 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those > > instead of addressing the whole thing. Such is life. > > > Alla: > > You do not like saying it because someone may address one point > instead of whole thing? > > What if I find only one or two or three points disagreeable? > > Obviously I am not going to argue with your dislike of the book, > because indeed how can we debate perceptions, but I certainly want > to adress this point. > Actually, I meant tiny things like using Dobby instead of Kreacher, things that any rushed modern person can do. Thanks for asking for the clarification. > Lealess: > > > I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and > they > > all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in > the > > writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant." > This > > is funny to me, since ... what are expectations, after all? > > > > > Alla: > > So I just want to strongly disagree that the praise of DH means > wish fulfillment or filling in the blanks for what JKR meant to do > but did not. > > I left in that exchange between you and Carol (hoping that I > correctly attributed Carol's words and yours) for a reason. > > > I mean, no I cannot say it even for the sake of argument, I think > it > is at least clear that Harry somehow changed his view about Snape, > no? > > > But say Harry did not experience any profound heart change about > Snape and Draco, he just respects Snape for his bravery and still > thinks they are the biggest gits on Earth. > > > That IS what you read in canon, yes? > > My point is that I consider Harry change of heart or NOT change of > heart towards Snape and Draco to be so very **tiny** part of the > story that I do not care either way. > Yes, Harry did change his opinion of Snape. All we know of this change is how brave he felt Snape was and he gave his third child a middle name of Severus. Other than that, I could speculate all day, as nothing else is plainly indicated. If you take JKR's own comments on the subject, she still finds Snape to be deeply horrible, but brave. Based on the text, I have no idea what Harry's complete feelings towards Snape are. Harry might just admire bravery more than anything else. > I think Carol's reading is plausible and yours is plausible too. > > But to me Harry Potter books had **NEVER** been the stories of > Draco and Snape OR the stories of Slytherin House fall and > redemption. > > To me they had always been stories about **Harry Potter** first and > foremost, and everybody else ( Yes, I know Snape is important to > the plot, but I still think of him same way as other characters) is > just a supporting player on Harry's journey. > > So, what I was looking for in DH just as every other book is the > satisfying resolution for Harry's journey first and foremost. > > I believe I got it all there straight on the page, I do not think > it is wish fulfillment. You got your wish! I agree that the books are about Harry. I did not find his resolution as satisfying as you did and was reading for other things, but as your reading is on the page, I cannot see wish- fulfillment in it. However, if you were reading resolutions into the story that are extrapolations based on what you would have liked to see, then I would say you are engaging in wish-fulfillment. > I got Harry fighting, growing, falling in love, experiencing > tremendous loss, grieving, laughing, I got all of that in tremendous > amounts. > > I am happy indeed. > > So, no, not wish fullfilment, except maybe in a sense that I got > Harry survive. > > > Obviously JMO, > > Alla > JMO, too. lealess From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu Sep 27 22:45:51 2007 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (IreneMikhlin) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:45:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <46FC329F.3040604@btopenworld.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177482 lealess wrote: > I was open to any resolution of the story, frankly. That > doesn't mean I have to like what I got, does it? > > > What I got in DH was a book that lauded stupidity, instinct, breeding > ("blood" and house), passivity, and loyalty over learning, planning, > choice, effort, and individual responsibility; that threw out or > literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite > resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, > werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, > house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who > some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his > motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and > lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly > and weak); that seems oblivious to its own double standards for > heroes versus bad guys, not to mention lessened standards for female > characters (Hermione the gatherer and food preparer); and perhaps > worst of all, was put together so sloppily, with plotholes, deus ex > machina galore, 180 degree changes in character (Kreacher, Snape, > Dumbledore to some extent), differing degrees of protection on > Horcruxes, echoes of other works (locket=one ring, Molly=Ripley), too > much teasing about Dumbledore's past, and groan, on and on and on. > So, JKR did not fail to meet my expectations. She just fell far > below my standards for a viable piece of fiction and far away from my > personal convictions. I don't think she should have to fit my > worldview, or that any work should. That should not preclude me from > criticizing the worldview that I find in her work. > Oh bravo, bravo. A beautiful summary of my problems with the book. To get out of the way what I liked: it was quite a page-turner while it lasted. However, since finishing it I have no desire to revisit any of those pages. Now to go back to what I've disliked. We've discussed a while ago that this book seems to be a wish-fulfillment for JKR, and some listees could not understand why would anyone consider it a detrimental quality in a book. I think I know now why I'm unhappy with the idea. If the book is a wish-fulfillment, it almost does not deserve to be considered a work of fiction. It has an emotional value for the author, I'm sure, but maybe it should have stayed between the author and her therapist? All these ramblings and ambiguities on the topics of death, mothers, abandonment etc., maybe they should have been worked through in some therapeutic journal *before* unleashing them on millions of readers? Just look at the way we are discussing the book lately - almost all the questions are only answered by guessing about JKR's subconscious. Why this or that happens in the book? Not because the logic of the plot demands it, not because the characters have developed in a certain way, but because JKR has this or that issue to deal with. Crossing to another discussion, about the importance of the style - I don't consider book to be less "worthy", because the style is simple, but I like it to be written from author's conscious mind, not subconscious. For every word on the page, if we ask ourselves - why it is there, the answer should be that the author wanted to put it there, not because it's crept out from some dark abyss of unresolved issues. Not to say that JKR is not a talented writer - she is hugely talented, and somehow she has managed to create a resonance with lots of readers on different topics, but most likely - without meaning to do so. Apparently all the topics other than Harry's journey appeared in the books accidentally, and were dropped by book 7. So the only happy readers are those who considered the books to be about Harry's journey, unsurprisingly. :-) Irene From kat7555 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 22:47:47 2007 From: kat7555 at yahoo.com (kat7555) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:47:47 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: <001901c8011e$d03ffc00$3062d1d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177483 Cathy D wrote: > And that is my problem as well. The further I get away > from my first reading (I have not even attempted to read > it again....uggh) the more disappointed I am and the more > just bloody horrible it is. > I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the > moment. > > In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list > because it just makes me more and more disappointed, > frustrated, and angry all the time. I had an opposite reaction. I loved Deathly Hallows and feel almost ashamed to admit how much I liked it. I was moved to tears several times especially during the Forest Again chapter and Harry's visit to his parents' grave. I didn't have any real ideas about how the book would end other than I wanted Harry to triumph in the end. Kathy Kulesza From va32h at comcast.net Thu Sep 27 23:15:56 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:15:56 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: <46FC329F.3040604@btopenworld.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177484 Carol wrote: But it seems strange to me to condemn a book for not meeting our expectations, for not being the book we would have written. It's like condemning the HP films for not duplicating the books without considering that a film is a different medium with differing requirements and conventions. Maybe you should try reading the book a second time, knowing that things won't turn out as you hoped but trying to appreciate it on its own terms. va32h here: It does not seem strange to me to condemn a book for not meeting the expectations set by the author in her six previous books. Any expectations I had of DH came from what I read in the first six books. I don't think thousands of readers pulled ideas like "house unity" out of our collective behinds with no basis for supposing that such a theme might bear fruit. And honestly, I know you don't mean it this way but pleas to "read it again" just come off as terribly condescending, IMHO. It's as if the fault cannot possibly lie in the work, but only in the reader and if we would just look at it this way or that way or try harder, we'd like it, just as we ought to. I have, in fact, read the book about three times now, not counting the times I re-read certain passages for the purpose of discussion. And it isn't getting any better for me, sorry. va32h From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 23:17:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:17:52 -0000 Subject: Judgement Day and Pietism vs. Calvinism (Formerly Re: Dumbledore's plan In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177485 Carol earlier: > > > > I think that LV returned to that state when the second AK was deflected onto him and killed him, and he'll remain there for all eternity (unless there's a Judgment Day, which JKR might or might not imagine, but which is not implied in DH). > > > > Gary B. > > Carol, actually I think that the canon has many references to a judgement day. The most obvious is - > > as many have pointed out, inscribed on the tomb of Harry's parents > is "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death" (DH, ch 16, > AmEd, p. 328)which is from 1 Corinthians 15:26. This is not a > common quotation within the context of the famous description of > Paul of the resurrection and the second coming. The entire passage > ends with the more familiar "Death, where is thy sting?" from Paul. > Resurrection promised eternal life after the end-time -- therefore, > no one should fear death. This is a message that clearly Tom Riddle > missed given his life and his overwhelming fear of death even to the > extent of splitting his soul to 'cheat' death. Obviously not well > understood by the brothers in the tale inside of DH. > > As had been pointed out several times, Harry actually misunderstands > the inscription upon reading it and gets very upset at what he sees > as a Death Eater statement. Carol responds: I think you may have misunderstood my position. I'm not among the readers who views DH as a Calvinist tract though I certainly see the same *Christian* implications that you do, not only in the inscriptions on the graves but the cross on the "grave" of Mad-Eye Moody's magical eye and the carols on Christmas eve (ironic that the confrontation with Bathilda!Nagini occurs in the early hours of Christmas morning--I'm not sure how to read that) and the chapter title "King's Cross," which for me suggests that Harry is sacrificing himself for the wizarding world as Christ sacrificed himself for sinners. (Please note that a Christ figure in literature is not the same as an allegorical representation of Christ; it's only a character who shares traits in common with Christ and yet remains a mortal and fallible human being. I have no doubt whatever that Harry is a Christ figure (the Chosen One), but he is assuredly not the Son of God or a model of perfection or even a saint.) We've had hints, starting with the existence of the soul in PoA and including the Veil in OoP and Luna's calm assurance that she'll see her mother again, that some sort of afterlife exists in the Potterverse. Clearly, Voldemort is wrong to fear death (and more so to try to insure his own earthly immortality through unnatural means) and Dumbledore is right to see death as "the next great adventure." (Just what that adventure involves, we don't find out because Harry chooses to return to the living world rather than "going on.") So I disagree that we have many references to a Judgment Day (dies irae), a day when God decides who will be saved and who will be eternally damned. What we have is many references to an afterlife. With regard to Voldemort's mangled soul, as represented by the maimed child left under a bench, it *appears* that he is already damned, not by God but by his own actions and choices (though Harry offers him the opportunity for remorse, his one chance to escape the fate that Harry has foreseen or envisioned in "King's Cross"). What I meant was that it's unclear whether on some future Judgment Day Voldemort might be judged to have suffered enough in what amounts to his own personal hell or purgatory and released. Since the conventional depictions of the Judgment Day don't work that way (the dead sleep until the End Time, when the saved are delivered and the damned cast into eternal flames), I don't think that's going to happen. Voldemort has already been judged and found wanting even though no God appers in the picture. So, yes, there's an afterlife in the Potterverse. It appears that Dumbledore, James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin (all flawed, even Lily) are redeemed. DD's hand is healed; Lupin and Sirius look younger than Harry has ever seen them, the one healed of lycanthropy and the other of the taint of Azkaban. Extending that comforting vision to Snape, who has clearly redeemed himself, I think his afterlife will be much happier than his short, miserable time on earth. At any rate, JKR is a Christian, and the Christian concepts of forgiveness and redemption and the eternal life of the soul, not to mention Harry's willing self-sacrifice and his choice of love over revenge, come to the fore in DH, as the concept of mercy does at the end of HBP. But I don't think she's a Calvinist. Judgment Day (and the vengeful God of the Apocalypse) seem to have no role in her books. Christ is there by implication, in certain symbols and actions, but Harry is not Christ; the afterlife (whatever the dead "go on" to) is not heaven as it is usually envisioned (King's Cross is only the way station where dead wizards choose whether to go on or become ghosts, or, in Harry's unique case, whether to go on or return to life, with all its joy and suffering. Dumbledore, fallible and manipulative as he is, is certainly not God. IOW, the story has Christian implications but is not a Christian allegory. It is not in any way that I can see, given the emphasis on choice, mercy, forgiveness, redemption, and a peaceful afterlife for the eternal soul (except when that soul has been wilfully and irreparably mutilated), a Calvinist (or antinomian) story or allegory. Carol, who does not consider "afterlife" and "Judgment Day" to be synonymous and doesn't think that JKR does, either From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Sep 27 23:34:54 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:34:54 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177486 > Carol responds: > What I do find distracting in JKR's is a tendency to write > unattributed dialogue, so that I'm sometimes unsure who is speaking. > (Was it Sirius or James who dubbed Severus "Snivellus" in "The > Prince's Tale"? I think it was Sirius, but I can't be sure. zgirnius: Here's a doozy of the genre...who killed Charity Burbage? This was brought up in a discussion at CoS Forums, and having looked at the scene again, I can suddenly see why some readers' first impression was Snape. > DH, "Dark Lord Ascending": > "Severus...Please...Please..." > "Nobody laughed this time: There was no mistaking the anger and contempt in Voldemort's voice. For the third time, Charity Burbage revolved to face Snape. Tears were pouring from her eyes into her hair. Snape looked back at her, quite impassive, as she turned slowly away from him again. > "Avada Kedavra." > The flash of green light illuminated every corner of the room. Charity fell, with a resounding crash, onto the table below, which trembled and creaked. Several of the Death Eaters leapt back in their chairs. Draco fell out of his onto the floor." > "Dinner, Nagini," said Voldemort softly, and the great snake swayed and slithered from his shoulders onto the polished wood." zgirnius: I tend to hold with my initial reading that it was Voldemort. He is not said to have put away his wand, and he used it to waken Charity, and later silence her pleas. He is angry with her. We have no indication Snape has drawn his wand, and under the circumstances one might expect an order from Voldemort if he wanted someone other than himself to do the honors. Yet it is true that focus moves from Voldemort to Snape, and only then do we get the line "Avada Kedavra", unattributed. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Sep 27 23:43:18 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:43:18 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177487 > Alla: > > So I just want to strongly disagree that the praise of DH means wish > fulfillment or filling in the blanks for what JKR meant to do but did > not. > > I left in that exchange between you and Carol (hoping that I > correctly attributed Carol's words and yours) for a reason. Magpie: I could have read lealess wrong (loved the whole post) but I didn't think s/he said that praise of DH=wish fulfillment. I thought s/he meant, well, what I've seen as well, which is just to say that I've had the experience of reading specific posts very eloquently written, that were just completely unconvincing to me as an interpretation of what I saw in the text. It's not praise in general that's filling in the blanks etc., but I have definitely read arguments in different places that read like the reader fulfilling their wishes, filling in the blanks and writing for JKR. Sometimes different opinions read as just a different interpretation that could be right--sometimes you can think more than one thing is potentially true based on the information you have. But sometimes things just aren't convincing to you as an interpretation (obviously-- if it was just a case of all our interpretations being beautiful unique snowflakes there'd be no point in debating or arguing and the text would be close to meaningless). It's like if I took my own themes that I would have liked to have seen, found neutral lines in the next that kind of related to them and built whole new things out of them mostly out of my own thoughts and words and ideas. I'm not saying that this is what anybody is intentionally doing--who would do that? Or that anything positive reads to me like that. But sometimes that's what it reads like. That's just what I thought of when I read lealess' post. Would I read DH again cover to cover? I might if I had some reason to, but I don't buy that I should or just didn't read the book on its own terms. How else would I read it? Of course I had expectations--reading always involves expectations and this is a series with six previous books. I've never needed to read one of them again to get close too what they mean or what my reaction to it is. But I honestly think I could have been convinced by a good story--my expectations weren't that specific. Frankly, I think that many of them came naturally out of the story and it's a valid to call it a flaw that they were raised and not addressed. Not because JKR needed to address the things I wanted addressed, but if she wasn't going to she would have had to give me something equally interesting and compelling and she didn't. Sometimes reading posts where people argue unconvincingly (to me) that these things were well-addressed make me think hey, obviously they should have been solved if somebody's going to these lengths to solve it themselves. (Ironically, sometimes these posts explain that not seeing this yourself means you're reading too simplistically, while to me it seems more like reading the book on its own terms.) Otoh, it's possible people only feel like they need to do these posts to answer the posts of others who call them flaws. Whatever problems anybody has, I definitely reject the idea that this has something to do with these being children's books. Children's books *do not* have to be simplistic or black and white or really anything like that. Plus, the HP books by DH have long been YA, which deals with stuff in more sophisticated ways than HP all the time. -m From s.hayes at qut.edu.au Thu Sep 27 23:59:49 2007 From: s.hayes at qut.edu.au (Sharon Hayes) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 09:59:49 +1000 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Message-ID: <20070928095949.CUK66562@mail-msgstore01.qut.edu.au> No: HPFGUIDX 177488 All this analysis of Draco is so fantastic, and I find it so interesting that so many people find him a thoroughly awful character. I know this post contains no canon, but it's entirely on topic, becuase I want to suggest to anyone who hates Draco and doesn't find anything interesting in him, to read a bit of good fan fiction on Draco. It is amazing how others' perspectives in writing about Draco opens up all the possibilities for backstory, depending on the particiular view of Draco's character taken byt the writer. I highly recommend www.harrypotterfanfiction.com, in particular a story called "Phoenix Rising" (Draco/Hermione). To me it really opened up a whole new can of worms concerning the possibilities for Draco's character, which I think does change considerably in the HP Series. Sharon [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri Sep 28 00:33:08 2007 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (Caius Marcius) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 00:33:08 -0000 Subject: FILK: The Muckraker Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177489 The Muckraker (DH, Chap. 2) To the tune of The Arbiter (aka Opening Ceremony) from the musical Chess by Benny Anderson, Bjorn Ulvaeus & Tim Rice YouTube vid ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fyg0h6tk-MM THE SCENE: RITA SKEETER hawks her latest literary achievement SKEETER: It's the duty of biography To relate all the facts In researching Albus Dumble This is what I find Which I grind ? with an axe Even though he was a Headmaster There's so much mystery In a mere 900 pages I bring truth to light As I fight secrecy This is a case For tabloids His reputation Will be destroyed Yes I'm the Muckraker, I show the worst CHORUS OF DEVOTED READERS: If it's gossip you like to sip, quench your thirst. SKEETER: I got my Quill Won't hear "no" And Batty Bagshot Is in the know Yes I'm the Muckraker, I'll never bore SKEETER + CHORUS: I'll/She'll dumbfound ev'ry fan of Al Dumbledore SKEETER: If you're wondering what made him click, Let it be understood: Ariana, broken noses, Stricken Aber brawled, Grindelwald ? Greater Good Dumble fell during the current war Potter stood at his side Now perhaps this retribution came from too much cash (Maybe slash) as Al died. This is a case For tabloids His reputation Will be destroyed Yes I'm the Muckraker, I show the worst CHORUS: She's the witch who will be the next Randolph Hearst SKEETER: I got my Quill Won't hear "no" And Batty Bagshot Is in the know Oh I'm the Muckracker, despite the war SKEETER+ CHORUS: I'll/She'll dumbfound ev'ry fan of Al Dumbledore SKEETER: Yes, I'm the Muckraker, I never bore SKEETER + CHORUS: I'll/She'll dumbfound ev'ry fan of Al Dumbledore SKEETER: This is a case for tabloids . I've got my quill ? won't hear "no"! If you're not dimmer than Dodgy is You will listen to me If you're not the kind of reader who can handle lies, Scandalized You will be. They all thought he was white as his beard Till they read my critique In the Daily Prophet you have no doubt seen my hook, Wrote my book In four weeks This is a case For tabloids His reputation Will be destroyed Yes I'm the Muckraker, I show the worst CHORUS: She's the witch who will be the next Randolph Hearst SKEETER: I got my Quill Won't hear "no" And Batty Bagshot Is in the know Oh I'm the Muckracker you can't ignore SKEETER+ CHORUS: Quite dumbstruck will each fan be of Dumbledore SKEETER: Oh I'm the Muckracker you all adore SKEETER+ CHORUS: I'll/She'll dumbfound ev'ry fan of Al Dumbledore - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 02:08:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:08:25 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177490 > Magpie: > I could have read lealess wrong (loved the whole post) but I didn't > think s/he said that praise of DH=wish fulfillment. I thought s/he > meant, well, what I've seen as well, which is just to say that I've had > the experience of reading specific posts very eloquently written, that > were just completely unconvincing to me as an interpretation of what I > saw in the text. It's not praise in general that's filling in the > blanks etc., but I have definitely read arguments in different places > that read like the reader fulfilling their wishes, filling in the > blanks and writing for JKR. Alla: I have not seen readers interpreting something that is not on the text and basing on them their liking of DH. Lealess ( I think) does not consider my reading wish fulfillment, and I do not think that she said praising equals wish fulfillment per ce, but I thought what she framed as wish fulfillment is still highly subjective ( as all our interpretations) and not wish fulfillment for the most part. IMO of course. Magpie: > Sometimes different opinions read as just a different interpretation > that could be right--sometimes you can think more than one thing is > potentially true based on the information you have. But sometimes > things just aren't convincing to you as an interpretation (obviously-- > if it was just a case of all our interpretations being beautiful unique > snowflakes there'd be no point in debating or arguing and the text > would be close to meaningless). It's like if I took my own themes that > I would have liked to have seen, found neutral lines in the next that > kind of related to them and built whole new things out of them mostly > out of my own thoughts and words and ideas. > Alla: Yes, if somebody was interpreting that at the end of the DH Harry becomes an astronaut and flies to Marc or something like that, I would have certainly called it wish fulfillment. You know, take any absurd example of something that is not in the text and substitute for mine. But if you are going to call the argument that let's say whatever changes in Slytherin house show the changes in the society or changes in Draco - you know, most hotly debated topics, I completely disagree then. I would call it exactly what you said _ **unsatisfactory interpretation for you** - nothing more, nothing else. And I can totally live with that, because lots of interpretations I do not buy, but if I am saying that I see the epilogue signaling the changes in WW, big ones, I do not think I am engaging in wish fulfillment, I am interpreting the text. Personally I do not see huge changes in the WW society as to, but I think the symbols are all there. I think the alchemic names symbolism is there, as Debbie argued once, I think the symbolism of Harry calling his child Severus shows really big change in Harry towards Snape. It is very easy for me to buy, because Jewish tradition ( or at least what I was told as a child) tells us to name the kids after dead **loved ones**. I repeat, dead **loved ones**. I do not need to hear Harry saying that he loves Snape so much. The symbolism of him naming his child after Snape tells me that Harry is at least rather fond of him now. We are NOT religious family at all, and still I am named in honor of my grandmother's brother ( the first letter of my name at least) and my brother is named in honor of our other grandmother. So, I do not think that when I think that Harry **did** experienced rather big change of heart towards the greasy git, I am engaging in wish fulfilment. I think I am interpreting what is on the page. Maybe not too many sentences, but for **me** it is enough. And again, keep in mind, I am the reader, who does not **care** if Harry experienced that change of heart, I am the reader who did **not** experienced that change of heart and rather happy that greasy git died and no Hogwarts kids would be subject to his wrath. I still see Harry's change of heart and I do **not** believe that this is wish fulfillment on my behalf. I rather call it one of the sides of JKR gift as a story teller that she can convey so much in so few words. The symbolism of Harry naming his child after Snape tells me a lot, IMO. Magpie: > I'm not saying that this is what anybody is intentionally doing-- who > would do that? Or that anything positive reads to me like that. But > sometimes that's what it reads like. That's just what I thought of when > I read lealess' post. Alla: I just do not see how we can debate anything, if we would call each other interpretations anything less than that - interpretations. Because by the same token I can say that sometimes, and of course not always and not intentional, who would do that intentionally, some negative interpretations read to me as simply unfulfilling expectations - NOT in the sense of expectations of the good story, but in a sense of expecting JKR to write particular plot twist and not getting it. This is what calling being happy with DH and extrapolating based on what in the text as wish fulfillment I can compare with. I mean, what exactly is in the text can be interpreted as House Unity hint? One Sorting Hat song, that just as easily can be interpreted as foreshadowing of DA, no? Because that interview is not in the book and if we are not taking what is not in the book as canon that interview does not exist then. But a lot of people expected House Unity based on that **one** song. If you can bring me **any** other canon hints, I would like to read them. Valid ? sure, it is. Even I warmed up to the idea of House Unity after years of being on the list and reading the passionate arguments for it. But the reason to say that JKR is a bad writer **because** she did not deliver House Unity, which we deciphered based on **one** song. I completely disagree. Magpie: > Would I read DH again cover to cover? I might if I had some reason to, > but I don't buy that I should or just didn't read the book on its own > terms. How else would I read it? Of course I had expectations-- reading > always involves expectations and this is a series with six previous > books. Alla: Of course not, I agree that you should not read the story if you do not want to or do not feel like it. But yeah, expectations we all have, but I do draw the line for myself at expecting a specific plot twist and judging JKR worth as writer based on that. Let me say again **I** draw the line at that, I am not saying anybody else should. I also drew the line at expecting JKR treat the particular character in certain way and not liking the book because of that. Same thing, **I** drew the line at that, not saying anybody else should. We had this conversation before. Of course I had the books reading where I was not happy with plot twists or treatment of particular character, how could I not? But I never ever would call writer a bad one because he or she say did not bring the storyline to the conclusion I wanted. I usually say that this is a great book, but the book I would not reread, because I was not emotionally satisfied with it. I do not call it a bad writing. My view, nobody else has to share it. I mentioned to you Pullman's books before, where I found the first and second books to be fascinating reads and was disappointed in the ending very much. It will never come to my mind to call Pullman bad writer because of that. Because I could not put the book down, such a grip it had on me. I was unhappy with the ending. I do not know what Pullman's writing skills have to do with it. I found "Parfume" to be incredibly gross book and was literally disgusted after I finished it. But OMG never in my life I had to read the book mostly with my nose before. I think Suskind is a phenomenally gifted writer, just not the book that I would ever pick up. The list can go on and on. Magpie: I've never needed to read one of them again to get close too > what they mean or what my reaction to it is. But I honestly think I > could have been convinced by a good story--my expectations weren't that > specific. Frankly, I think that many of them came naturally out of the > story and it's a valid to call it a flaw that they were raised and not > addressed. Not because JKR needed to address the things I wanted > addressed, but if she wasn't going to she would have had to give me > something equally interesting and compelling and she didn't. Alla: I do not know what your expectations were. You obviously mentioned Draco Malfoy and House unity before, besides that I have no idea. If you did not have specific expectations and expected good story and did not get, sure, totally understand. You were not convinced by a writing, I get it. But if you are not liking the books **only** because you did not get the House unity and Draco Malfoy's compelling resolution as it reads to you, well I understand how you are not emotionally satisfied with them, really. But I have **no idea** what this has to do with JKR worth as a writer. And please, I am not saying that you do not like the books because of that or only because of that. I obviously cannot read your mind. The only reason I am mentioning them is because as I said, you mentioned those before as some of your expectations, right? If you are telling me that those are NOT your expectations, I will accept it and that's it. If they are, of course they are valid, just as I believe mine to see evil Snape or know more about Prank are valid, I just disagree that we can judge how good JKR is as a writer based on that. Magpie: > Sometimes reading posts where people argue unconvincingly (to me) that > these things were well-addressed make me think hey, obviously they > should have been solved if somebody's going to these lengths to solve > it themselves. Alla: Another explanation is of course that people are NOT solving them themselves, they honestly see the solutions in the text. From 12newmoons at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 02:24:34 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:24:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177491 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > > Nancy: > > > Answer: I do hold a secret desire to have them meet on > > Platform 9 3/4 with Dudley delivering his child to the Howarts > > express:-).there is so much unfinished business there one can't > > begin to summarize it. > > > > Laura: > > Oh, what a delicious idea! I'd love to see that too. Can you > > imagine how fast the Dursleys would do a 180 on their attitude > > towards magic? > > Potioncat: Would > Dudley and his parents embrace a wizarding child, or would they act just like the Black family on learning a child is a Squib? Laura: My guess is that the Dursleys hated magic because it gave other people power that they could never get, not even by buying it or bullying it out of someone. But if they could have gotten magical powers, all of a sudden it would look pretty good to them, because they're all about status. Having someone in the family with abilities that would give them power over others would make them pretty happy, I'd think. Potioncat: > Which makes me wonder even more. How would Narcissa have reacted if Draco had been a Squib? Laura: I shudder to think. Perhaps another head on the wall at 12 Grimmauld Place? From Vexingconfection at aol.com Fri Sep 28 02:51:14 2007 From: Vexingconfection at aol.com (vexingconfection) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:51:14 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177492 > Laura: > My guess is that the Dursleys hated magic because it gave other > people power that they could never get, not even by buying it or > bullying it out of someone. But if they could have gotten magical > powers, all of a sudden it would look pretty good to them, because > they're all about status. Having someone in the family with > abilities that would give them power over others would make them > pretty happy, I'd think. vexingconfection: I think the Dursleys would choose to not admit to any child even if it were Dudley's. Even though it was hinted that Petunia hated wizards and witches out of jealousy- I see alot of prewar Germany in JKR's books. There were those who choose to ignore the Nazis and hope they would go away-the Dursleys and Fudge remind me of those. It reminds me of the poem-I can't quote it but it went something like... First they (the Nazis) came for the Socialists and I did nothing, then they came for the Jews then they came for me and there was no one left to help me. The Nazis also considered themselves to be a master race deserving of leading the world and those who were not of pure blood did not deserve to live. Does anyone else see the similarities? From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 02:59:17 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 02:59:17 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177493 > Pippin: > The catharsis chapter for me was King's Cross. The death that's supposed > to affect us, or that deeply affected me at least, was the death of hope > for Voldemort's soul. That was the overwhelming tragedy that Jo made > me feel -- not the loss of so many lives, however deeply missed, but > the waste of that one soul. lizzyben: Oh, that scene was powerful, no doubt. It deeply affected me as well, & the imagery was haunting. But was it cathartic, in the sense of offering a release of emotion & pain, and a sense of hope & healing? No way. If anything, it was the total opposite - there is no hope, there is no healing for LV, there is only eternal agony & pain. It's the total opposite of an emotional catharsis. Normally, the author takes the reader down into the depths of despair & then raises them up to a sense of reconciliation & acceptance. DH takes the readers to the very depths of despair, and ditches them there. King's Cross is, IMO, the spiritual linchpin of the series, representing JKR's vision of the afterlife. And this is it - a flayed baby crying under a chair. And it is horrible, as it is meant to be. After this vision of the damned, Harry returns to life, beats LV & sends him off to his damnation. Yay. But we never see the scene in which Harry & his friends recover from this trauma, or honor the ones who have died, or The last stage of grief is "acceptance and hope". DH doesn't show us that & it doesn't actually show the stages of grief at all. We get to see a lot of death, but we don't get to see how the heros coped with death, accepted death, or found renewal & hope. Instead we're left w/that last vision of a damned soul. How does that vision fit in with "don't pity the dead"? Shouldn't we pity that damned soul? Shouldn't we pity Moaning Myrtle, who never finds peace or consolation? Or the Bloody Baron, Nick & the other ghosts wandering about in a restless state? Don't all these "unhappy" souls contradict the happy, smiling Sirius' assurances that death is easy & peaceful? JKR says one thing, but shows another - and in this theme the pattern is most blatant. I get the sense she's trying to convince herself as much as she's trying to convince us. Pippin: > My understanding, and of course I don't know if this is what Jo had > in mind, is that Voldemort's soul, being sovereign, can not be rescued > from the prison he created of it. He, like the Albania in which he once > took refuge, is a closed-border state. For me that's heart-breaking. lizzyben: That's my understanding as well, but I don't believe that LV ever had a choice - his soul was born in that prison & then punished for eternity. He was predestined for damnation. It's a bleak, bleak vision. Pippin: > Harry and Dumbledore can do nothing more, not even sympathize. > There is no connection possible because he's rejected the ability to feel > anything but hate and anger, emotions of which Harry and Dumbledore, > in their more perfect state, are no longer capable. lizzyben: Here I will always disagree. And that's where I start to really wonder what kind of message JKR is pushing. Cause it's truly one of the most disturbing scenes I've ever read in terms of its implied message about obedience to authority & the suppression of compassion. If you as a reader could feel pity, compassion & sorrow for LV's state, why couldn't Harry or Dumbledore? You know what that "King's Cross" scene reminded me of? The Milgram experiment. The experiment measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience. In that experiment, the volunteer was put in a room with an authority figure & another person. The authority figure then ordered the volunteer to issue shocks of increasing severity to the other person whenever he answered a question wrong. The other volunteer eventually began to cry out with pain & agony, and insisted that they stop and let him go. Volunteers would often try to stop the experiment & help the suffering person, but the authority figure would calmly repeat over & over "you cannot help him," "ignore him, don't look at him," "the experiment must continue". Until eventually, the volunteers squelched their natural empathy & obeyed the authority figure. In fact, 65% of volunteers issued the highest shocks possible, even when the other person became unconscious. These were people who would never dream of ignoring a suffering person on their own, but they showed obedience to the authority figure - even when it went against their own morals. It's a chilling message about human nature & our ability to submit to authority. Sound familiar? In King's Cross, Harry enters a room with his ultimate authority figure (Dumbledore) and a suffering baby. Harry at first wants to help the child, who is crying in agony & pain, but Dumbledore keeps insisting that "you cannot help," & "there is no help possible" for the baby. DD *orders* Harry not to help it & tells Harry to ignore the baby's cries. The text says that eventually, Harry learned to tune out the baby's cries and ignore its suffering. Harry has obeyed his authority figure, even though DD's orders go against Harry's own compassion & desire to save people. He displayed obedience to authority - even when that authority ordered him to do something immoral or cruel. It's the Milgram experiment all over again. And it's horrible. What's the moral here? If an authority figure tells you to do something suicidal & stupid, a courageous Gryffindor should just do it. If an authority figure orders you to do something immoral, repress your compassion & obey. WTF? Was HP supposed to be a pro-authoritarian series? Harry's apparently supposed to be a Christ-figure. Well, looking at it from a Christian sense, what would Jesus do? He healed the lepers & the blind & the outcasts of society. I like to think he'd try to help LV too. And it's not because of who LV is, but because of who Jesus is. If Harry's going to be a Christ-figure, the whole helping to heal the suffering should be a part of that - but it wasn't. So Harry is a Christ-figure who ignores a suffering child on his God's orders. Ick! I don't think compassion is a feeling that should be stifled & repressed on an authority figure's orders, & it disturbs me that DH seems to say just that. Pippin: > I think it would be easy to mistake transcendence for coldness. > Harry was so devastated by the death of Cedric, yet each > subsequent death seems to affect him less. But it isn't, IMO, that > Jo has forgotten to make him care about losing people, it's that > to him they're not really lost, or that he grows to understand > Luna's serene confidence that nothing can truly be taken from > her. lizzyben: I didn't feel a sense of serene transcendence from Harry. He was an emotional mess at the end of OOTP, & then has suddenly forgotten about Sirius in HBP. We don't see him accepting or finding peace w/Sirius' fate, we just see him ignoring it. At the same time, his personality changes - suddenly he's bullying people, cheating, using hexes & near-fatal curses w/little to no regret. If Harry were real, that'd be a classic sign of repression & denial. JKR never shows Harry *dealing* w/death, or going through the grieving process. Deathly Hallows just gets worse, w/the other characters almost shrugging as one after another is killed off. Ron makes a quip right after his brother dies? It's just weird. And the novel just ends w/o the traditional closing chapter that honors the ones who have died & allows healing & hope for the future. I don't get "serene confidence" from that - it's more like grief was actually repressed or cut from the novel. Thus, no emotional catharsis at the end. Pippin: > The quotation in the front of the book explains it better: > "This is the comfort of friends, that though they may be said to > die, yet their friendship and society are, in the best sense, ever > present, because immortal." > > If you read the book as fairy tales are meant to be read, never > finishing without starting again ( "Another story, sister! Another > story!") you will encounter that quote as a coda to the epilogue, > along with the poem from Aeschylus which seems to lament > Snape's death. lizzyben: That's a good point, & I agree that the quote is probably meant to evoke the sense that the dead never truly leave us, as the scene in "The Forest Again" represents. And I'm sure that scene resonated with many people. It just didn't work for me. Mostly because it felt emotionally dishonest. Rather than dealing w/death in a realistic way, the scene went for easy platitudes. "Dying is quick & easy!" Baloney. JKR knows that isn't true, I don't know why she'd think readers will believe that. All the smiling happy dead people freaked me out a little. Them encouraging Harry to die freaked me out a lot. It's another example of surface message/subtext split. The surface message shouts out that Death Is Really OK! Don't Be Afraid of Death! Look how happy Harry's dead loved ones are! etc. But, the subtext is all about fear of death - LV is a damned soul who *should* fear death, Harry sacrifices & "accepts" death, but yet escapes death. He takes the Cloak, which allows the wearer to hide from death. And none of the character deaths (Fred, Lupin, etc.) are really addressed or honored at the end of the novel - it's almost like their deaths are hidden away as well. So in place of catharsis, we have repression. I didn't feel inspired, emotionally cleansed, or renewed at the end of DH. And that's because the novel never actually addressed tragedy & death in an honest, truthful way. I felt like the story was lying to me. And I really didn't like the lies it was telling, and I didn't like that I was simply expected to accept them w/o question. lizzyben From yvaine28 at gmail.com Fri Sep 28 03:51:28 2007 From: yvaine28 at gmail.com (meann ortiz) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:51:28 +0800 Subject: Winky - another loose end In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5d7223330709272051s2c2ad8e0gd1f0052d8cabcc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177494 On 9/28/07, allies426 wrote: > > Whatever happened to Winky? There is no mention of her with the > swarming house-elves at the Battle of Hogwarts. (Thinking about > it, I bet the Hogwarts house-elves alone outnumber the Death > Eaters, even without any wizards!) Did she spend the battle > drinking butterbeer in the kitchen, or did she rally and help > defend the castle, even though she still felt the Crouches were > her masters? Meann: According to the Bloomsbury Web chat (http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2007/0730-bloomsbury-chat.html), she actually was one of those attacking house-elves: *Jamie Lewis*: What ever happened to winky *J.K. Rowling*: She's still at Hogwarts, and she was one of the oncoming house-elves who attacked the Death Eaters in the final battle. =) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 28 04:15:15 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:15:15 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177495 > Alla: > > Yes, if somebody was interpreting that at the end of the DH Harry > becomes an astronaut and flies to Marc or something like that, I > would have certainly called it wish fulfillment. You know, take any > absurd example of something that is not in the text and substitute > for mine. > > But if you are going to call the argument that let's say whatever > changes in Slytherin house show the changes in the society or > changes in Draco - you know, most hotly debated topics, I completely > disagree then. > > I would call it exactly what you said _ **unsatisfactory > interpretation for you** - nothing more, nothing else. And I can > totally live with that, because lots of interpretations I do not > buy, > but if I am saying that I see the epilogue signaling the changes in > WW, big ones, I do not think I am engaging in wish fulfillment, I am > interpreting the text. Magpie: Well, yes. I'm sure the person is advancing it as an interpretation that works. I'm strictly talking about my way of reading the book and how many interpretations just don't ring true for me at all except as something written by the reader that isn't backed up in the text but grafted onto it. Whether it's not as silly as Harry going to Mars doesn't really matter. It's actually more like ESE!Lupin to me. So reading positive posts doesn't change my view of the texts the way they would if I read them and thought their interpretation worked and changed the way I saw it. I mean, clearly some of the things that to me are nice but huge stretches work for you, but that still doesn't make them any more believable to me, or sound like JKR's style of writing, so they don't help me. It'd be great if I thought this stuff was convincing rather than just eloquent, because it would put some great depth in the book. I just don't find the explanations that it is there convincing. > > Alla: > > I just do not see how we can debate anything, if we would call each > other interpretations anything less than that - interpretations. > > Because by the same token I can say that sometimes, and of course > not always and not intentional, who would do that intentionally, > some negative interpretations read to me as simply > unfulfilling expectations - NOT in the sense of expectations of the > good story, but in a sense of expecting JKR to write particular plot > twist and not getting it. Magpie: And there are probably many specific arguments that you could make a good case were doing that as well. All negative reactions aren't about wanting a particular plot twist and not getting it, but some are, and it's probably natural that they sometimes sound like it when they are. In order to argue an interpretation, whether it's positive or negative, you have to use the text to show that it works. If everything's just an interpretation than Harry can be said to be going to Mars at the end. Anything can happen between the lines. We argue to try to show that one interpretation works more than another: "Clearly this scene shows that Hermione and Harry were in love with each other, not Ron and Ginny respectively!" or "Clearly Harry's line to Albus means that they're on the way to House Unity!" Alla: > I mean, what exactly is in the text can be interpreted as House > Unity hint? One Sorting Hat song, that just as easily can be > interpreted as foreshadowing of DA, no? Because that interview is > not in the book and if we are not taking what is not in the book as > canon that interview does not exist then. > > But a lot of people expected House Unity based on that **one** song. > If you can bring me **any** other canon hints, I would like to read > them. Magpie: Obviously now that we're at the end we know it was just a foreshadowing of the DA. They joined all three together and left Slytherin out as the common enemy to bring the other three together, just like the Founders did. I, personally, was wrong to think that that song's warning and Harry's 'fat chance' about working with Malfoy was foreshadowing they would work together. It wasn't like Harry's "He would never forgive Snape!" (Harry did change how he felt about those people, just imo in an incredibly lame and undramatic way.) If somebody argued now that House Unity actually happened so the school all stood as one, then I would disagree with that interpretation. The earlier interpretation was predictive. It was about what was going to happen. When it didn't happen, I revised my interpretation of the earlier scene, just as, for instance, I revised my interpretation of the Shrieking Shack Scene and SWM. JKR isn't a bad writer because she didn't write about House Unity. She could have written something else that was just as compelling or more so. I thought the book was disappointing on its own. I didn't like what she did write, so the ghost of the book that might have been is still hanging around. > Alla: > > Of course not, I agree that you should not read the story if you do > not want to > or do not feel like it. But yeah, expectations we all have, but I do > draw the line for myself at expecting a specific plot twist and > judging JKR > worth as writer based on that. Magpie: Me too. Luckily I'm not much of a predictor so I didn't have any specific plot twists I wanted and didn't get--I had some general resolutions I expected more from, but no specific plot twists that I didn't get. What I did have in DH occasionally were alternatives that I thought up as I was reading because I found what was there was disappointing. Not the reaction JKR was going for from her readers, I know, but nothing I went in looking for, since I couldn't have even imagined the scenarios before I was actually reading them. Alla: > > But I never ever would call writer a bad one because he or she say > did not bring the storyline to the conclusion I wanted. Magpie: No, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say something was a bad book because you thought the storyline was brought to an unsatisfactory conclusion. To use another book series for example, I think the twist at the end of the Dark is Rising is bad. I didn't have a specific desire for the series, I just didn't like that twist at the end. I don't like it personally, but I also just don't think it's a good idea period. It doesn't ruin the ending because it's not connected to what came before. Alla: > I mentioned to you Pullman's books before, where I found the first > and second books to be fascinating reads and was disappointed in the > ending very much. It will never come to my mind to call Pullman bad > writer because of that. Because I could not put the book down, such > a grip it had on me. I was unhappy with the ending. I do not know > what Pullman's writing skills have to do with it. > > I found "Parfume" to be incredibly gross book and was literally > disgusted after I finished it. But OMG never in my life I had to > read the book mostly with my nose before. I think Suskind is a > phenomenally gifted writer, just not the book that I would ever pick > up. > > The list can go on and on. Magpie: I've had those kind of experiences too. But I've also had books that I read and thought the writer was just not very good in general. I just read one like that, in fact. There were a lot of times in DH that I thought aspects of the book were dreadful. I wasn't drawn into the book or fascinated by it. I didn't cry or get emotionally involved in it. I still give JKR credit for the talent she has, but I think my disappointment in DH went far beyond not having plot twists that I wanted to see happen. They were really more about not liking the stuff there. > > Magpie: > I've never needed to read one of them again to get close too > > what they mean or what my reaction to it is. But I honestly think > I > > could have been convinced by a good story--my expectations weren't > that > > specific. Frankly, I think that many of them came naturally out of > the > > story and it's a valid to call it a flaw that they were raised and > not > > addressed. Not because JKR needed to address the things I wanted > > addressed, but if she wasn't going to she would have had to give > me > > something equally interesting and compelling and she didn't. > > > Alla: > > I do not know what your expectations were. You obviously mentioned > Draco Malfoy and House unity before, besides that I have no idea. If > you did not have specific expectations and expected good story and > did not get, sure, totally understand. You were not convinced by a > writing, I get it. But if you are not liking the books **only** > because you did not get the House unity and Draco Malfoy's > compelling resolution as it reads to you, well I understand how you > are not emotionally satisfied with them, really. But I have **no > idea** what this has to do with JKR worth as a writer. Magpie: Stories raise expectations--that's part of what they do. I expected Harry would kill Voldemort, that evil would be vanquished, that Hermione would be brainy and Ron would be snarky and Luna would be vague. That we'd find out what side Snape was on and the Horcruxes would get destroyed. Those are all things we should have been expecting. If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and the thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. What I said above was just that I accept that JKR just didn't actually want to write about House Unity. So when people who claim the book worked really well claim that House Unity actually did happen brilliantly, it seems like they feel like it ought to have happened for the series to conclude. I think she didn't write it, period. She didn't seem to think it was necessary. Harry was the defender of what came before. It was Voldemort who had the plan for big change. As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good stuff that's a criticism of her as a writer. But my problems with DH go far beyond "She didn't do House Unity or do something better with Draco Malfoy." I mean, when I'm criticizing the book I feel like I ought to talk about what's in the, not what's not in the book. Therefore not having House Unity actually isn't a criticism I have of the book at all. There was no storyline about it, so there's nothing to criticize-- Slytherin is a very different house there. My criticisms of Draco's storyline aren't just that he didn't do X that I imagined him doing, but that I thought he was all over the place with no purpose, he confused me and seemed pointless whenever he showed up and just petered out after a really good beginning in the first chapter. And that it was a waste of the set up in HBP, yes. That did raise my expectations for him to make an important choice. JKR seemed to instead want the point to be that he was frozen, which is her choice but led for me to the Malfoys being pretty boring and left me feeling like this coming of age series regressed. So whatever she was trying to do with Draco in DH, I thought it was a weak choice or one that didn't come across to me. It did suggest to me some things that would have been stronger as I was reading, but these weren't things I went into the book with--they were made up in response to the disappointment I had with what I read. -m From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 28 04:37:44 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:37:44 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177496 Magpie: > I mean, when I'm criticizing the book I feel like I ought to talk > about what's in the, not what's not in the book. Therefore not having > House Unity actually isn't a criticism I have of the book at all. > There was no storyline about it, so there's nothing to criticize-- > Slytherin is a very different house there. My criticisms of Draco's > storyline aren't just that he didn't do X that I imagined him doing, > but that I thought he was all over the place with no purpose, he > confused me and seemed pointless whenever he showed up and just > petered out after a really good beginning in the first chapter. And > that it was a waste of the set up in HBP, yes. That did raise my > expectations for him to make an important choice. JKR seemed to > instead want the point to be that he was frozen, which is her choice > but led for me to the Malfoys being pretty boring and left me feeling > like this coming of age series regressed. Magpie: Adding on to myself to try to head off confusion. I *do* think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize they're not being House Unity in the book in terms of what that "says." I think the whole set up of Slytherin just being the house that houses all the less noble aspects of ourselves is a really unhealthy and uninspiring idea, and I think it's perfectly valid as a criticism, or especially to explain a personal reaction of why somebody thought the series wasn't enjoyable. I do think that a series that dealt with this question might have been better for me because I don't like the whole underlying philosophy. But that's a bit different than discussing DH as a single book or the second half of HBP and how it's written. On that score I'd go for a lot of other things before I got to what storyline she should have written instead. I would at least try to judge what she actually did first. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 28 04:38:42 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:38:42 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177497 Lealess: that threw out or > literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite > resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, > werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, Pippin: When I was Harry's age, I thought my generation would end war, poverty and discrimination, ban the bomb, save the whales, and bring back the five cent cigar (j/k on the last one.) I wouldn't say we completely succeeded :P. I also wouldn't say we made no progress at all but how much of it would be obvious to someone standing on a railroad platform twenty years later? Maybe a little. About like what we saw in DH. Lealess: > house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who > some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his > motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and > lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly > and weak); Pippin: Yeah, some continue to view. Having created anti-Slytherin prejudice, there is nothing JKR could do or say to erase it from closed minds. Now, I have heard a lot of things that read to me as anti-Slytherin prejudice, but I have never heard anyone admit to being an anti-Slytherin bigot. They always seem to think their opinions are as fair and balanced as anybody's JKR would have something to answer for if Slytherins were real...fortunately for her they're not. But suppose she is trying to reach people who are biased but willing to reconsider on the basis of new information, which do you think they would find more persuasive -- data which confirm some faults of the House but also some virtues not revealed before -- or a total whitewash? Lealess: > I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they > all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the > writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant." Pippin: I don't see why the interpretation of something that's open to interpretation should be called wish fulfillment, or doing the author's work for her. The author's job is to engage our interest. Any good teacher knows that an intriguing question can do a better job of that than a pat answer. Especially for questions to which there are no pat answers. Where do you draw the line between ethnic pride and chauvinism? How do you know that someone has had a change of heart? What makes a person good? I used to think HP was about good guys and bad guys. Now I think it's about more or less damaged people, without blueprints or instructions, trying to repair the world. There's a Jewish saying I think fits well with the epilogue: It is not incumbent on you to finish the work. But neither may you refrain from it. Lealess: > For example: > > > Harry's ability to see certain characters > > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? > I don't see this. He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus > because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape > clearly. Pippin: Harry saw Snape as a coward in HBP. How is being able to recognize Snape's bravery not seeing Snape more clearly? Lealess: > He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably > because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he >understands him. Pippin: If he understands that Draco is capable of keeping his nose clean, then he understands Draco a lot better than he did when he suspected Draco of opening the Chamber of Secrets, or of conspiring with Snape. Lealess: > Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else? Had Harry never before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was? Al is 11 years old, after all. Pippin: Of course Al's heard the story before -- but kids don't always connect the dots, especially when they're picking up opposing messages from other people. But that name -- if the Goldman family ever names a kid after OJ, or the Kennedy family names a kid after Oswald, I would think they were making a very strong statement and it wouldn't be about forgiveness. It would be about total, one hundred percent exoneration and a down on the knees in the dust apology for ever thinking otherwise. (Not that I remotely think any such thing is called for.) Maybe I am a DH evangelist. I enjoyed the book and I'd like to share the things I liked about it. I do respect everyone's right to do the opposite. One person's wish fulfillment is another's basket of sour grapes. Pippin From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 06:46:55 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:46:55 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177498 >Lealess: >>that threw out or >> literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite >> resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, >> werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, > >Pippin: >When I was Harry's age, I thought my generation would end war, >poverty and discrimination, ban the bomb, save the whales, and >bring back the five cent cigar (j/k on the last one.) I wouldn't >say we completely succeeded :P. I also wouldn't say we >made no progress at all but how much of it would be obvious >to someone standing on a railroad platform twenty years later? >Maybe a little. About like what we saw in DH. And maybe no progress had been made at all. Maybe Ron's "Look who it is" was not supposed to echo James' comment before Snape's Worst Memory. Maybe Albus Severus' fear of being sorted into Slytherin won't cause him and Rose to insult Scorpius on the train. But you're right: we can't tell from the scene in the train station. We can't tell much from the book what kind of society Harry is living in at the end except that they might be at peace. On the other hand, you can go to most any train station in the U.S. now and not know that the U.S. is at war. In HP, the rosy society painted by some speculators is just that, speculation, wish-fulfillment, the desire to see a better society where, frankly, none is shown. I mean, Lucius Malfoy always seemed polite, albeit in a poisonous kind of way. Maybe Draco's curt nod was just adult politeness and nothing more, after which Draco turns away and Ron sets up a rivalry between the kids and Scorpius. Harry isn't mentioned returning Draco's nod or smiling or waving. Maybe it shows growth for Draco, or maybe not. >Lealess: >> house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who >> some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his >> motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and >> lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly >> and weak); > >Pippin: > >Yeah, some continue to view. > >Having created anti-Slytherin prejudice, there is nothing JKR >could do or say to erase it from closed minds. Now, I have heard >a lot of things that read to me as anti-Slytherin prejudice, but >I have never heard anyone admit to being an anti-Slytherin >bigot. They always seem to think their opinions are as fair >and balanced as anybody's JKR would have something >to answer for if Slytherins were real...fortunately for her they're >not. > >But suppose she is trying to reach people who are biased but >willing to reconsider on the basis of new information, which >do you think they would find more persuasive -- data >which confirm some faults of the House but also some >virtues not revealed before -- or a total whitewash? Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House that were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more persuasive? Is Harry's comment that Slytherin would gain an excellent student, immediately followed up by the suggestion that Al can still choose Gryffindor over Slytherin like his dad did, your data? because the added comment totally subverts the first part for me. Suppose JKR is trying to reach people who are biased against Slytherins, or let's say, against non-white people, or against homosexuals, or little people, or just non-English people. Do you think she's done a good job of reaching them and opening their minds? Actually, I wonder if she was even aiming for an anti-prejudice message. >Lealess: >> I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they >> all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the >> writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant." > >Pippin: >I don't see why the interpretation of something that's open to >interpretation should be called wish fulfillment, or doing the >author's work for her. The author's job is to engage our interest. >Any good teacher knows that an intriguing question can do a >better job of that than a pat answer. > >Especially for questions to which there are no pat answers. >Where do you draw the line between ethnic pride and chauvinism? >How do you know that someone has had a change of heart? >What makes a person good? > >I used to think HP was about good guys and bad guys. Now >I think it's about more or less damaged people, without >blueprints or instructions, trying to repair the world. There's >a Jewish saying I think fits well with the epilogue: It is >not incumbent on you to finish the work. But neither may >you refrain from it. I respect what you are saying, and agree that an intriguing question is better. I think books 1-6 raised intriguing questions, which I enjoyed thinking about. Book 7 is what it is, and I think it is morally black-and-white despite its purported realistic portrayal of flawed individuals and societies. I think the blueprint and instructions were there, and they were named Albus Dumbledore and the House system. That is an interpretation of what I read in the book. When I say that the Wizarding World has been changed for the better, Slytherin House has been redeemed, prejudice has been eliminated, Draco is a better person, and Ron has grown up, this is closer to wish-fulfillment. I could just as easily say nothing has changed in the Wizarding World, Slytherin House is still a pariah, prejudice is as deeply engrained as ever, Draco is his father's slippery son, and Ron is a biased troublemaker. Either statement is based on a more emotional reaction to the book. I read a beautiful essay about how Snape had become a better man through the influence of Lily's love. The essay was awe-inspiring, but in the end, it was what the writer wanted to see, not what was necessarily there. So, when a person has to make up scenes and say, for example, that Dumbledore loved Snape when his words were, "You disgust me"... I call that wish-fulfillment. Not that people shouldn't dream or speculate, but it's not persuasive argument. >Lealess: >> For example: >> >> > Harry's ability to see certain characters >> > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? > >> I don't see this. He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus >> because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape >> clearly. > >Pippin: >Harry saw Snape as a coward in HBP. How is being able to >recognize Snape's bravery not seeing Snape more clearly? > To address this one point, bravery is one aspect of Snape's personality. It happens to be one we know Harry values. What else does Harry see about Snape that may be important to Snape but isn't important to Harry? What about his work, the destroyed potions book, the knowledge that went with him? What about the positions he held, the skills he showed in doing his jobs? Are these things recognized or praised? No... his courage, the Gryffindor trait, is praised. Do you think Harry really understands Snape, or understands what he wants to see? >Lealess: >> He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably >> because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he >>understands him. > >Pippin: >If he understands that Draco is capable of keeping his >nose clean, then he understands Draco a lot better than >he did when he suspected Draco of opening the Chamber >of Secrets, or of conspiring with Snape. Or maybe he just thinks Draco is a cipher of little interest to him anymore. I think I was just storytelling there, anyway. Maybe Harry was secretly overjoyed to see Draco and disappointed he couldn't wave to him. Now I'm in the realm of fanfiction. There is no evidence of any reaction by Harry to Draco. What do we get from that? I don't know -- probably that Draco is no longer capable of pushing Harry's buttons. That doesn't speak of tolerance or understanding to me. >>Lealess: >> Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else? Had >>Harry never before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was? >>Al is 11 years old, after all. > >Pippin: >Of course Al's heard the story before -- but kids don't always >connect the dots, especially when they're picking up opposing >messages from other people. But that name -- if the Goldman >family ever names a kid after OJ, or the Kennedy family names a >kid after Oswald, I would think they were making a very strong >statement and it wouldn't be about forgiveness. It would >be about total, one hundred percent exoneration and a down >on the knees in the dust apology for ever thinking otherwise. >(Not that I remotely think any such thing is called for.) "Of course Al's heard the story before..." Said with such conviction! How do you know? This is the Wizarding World, where people never tell anyone anything important, especially if it would avoid unnecessary strife! Harry was wrong about Snape. The Goldmans are probably not wrong about OJ, nor the Kennedys about Oswald, with whom they do not have a personal relationship. Not only was Harry wrong about Snape, but the fact that Snape loved one Gryffindor, Harry's mother, and doggedly followed another makes, I believe, a great deal of difference to Harry and to the story. >Maybe I am a DH evangelist. I enjoyed the book and I'd like >to share the things I liked about it. I do respect everyone's right >to do the opposite. One person's wish fulfillment is another's >basket of sour grapes. > >Pippin And I guess I'm going to Hell! lealess From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 06:56:09 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 06:56:09 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177499 --- "Zara" wrote: > > > Carol responds: > > What I do find distracting in JKR's is a tendency to > > write unattributed dialogue, so that I'm sometimes > > unsure who is speaking. > > ... > > zgirnius: > Here's a doozy of the genre...who killed Charity > Burbage? ... some readers' first impression was Snape. > > > DH, "Dark Lord Ascending": > > "Severus...Please...Please..." > > Burbage's sins> > > > "Nobody laughed this time: There was no mistaking > the anger and contempt in Voldemort's voice. For the > third time, Charity Burbage revolved to face Snape. > Tears were pouring from her eyes into her hair. > Snape looked back at her, quite impassive, as she > turned slowly away from him again. > > > "Avada Kedavra." > > > The flash of green light illuminated every corner > of the room. Charity fell, with a resounding crash, > onto the table below, which trembled and creaked. > Several of the Death Eaters leapt back in their > chairs. Draco fell out of his onto the floor." > > > "Dinner, Nagini," said Voldemort softly, and the > great snake swayed and slithered from his shoulders > onto the polished wood." > > zgirnius: > I tend to hold with my initial reading that it was > Voldemort. He is not said to have put away his wand, > and he used it to waken Charity, and later silence > her pleas. He is angry with her. ... Yet it is true > that focus moves from Voldemort to Snape, and only > then do we get the line "Avada Kedavra", unattributed. > bboyminn: This is what I refer to as Scene Implied Dialog. The scene tells us who the actor is. In a very simplistic illustration - Harry walked into the room and saw Ron lying on the sofa. "I thought you were going to work today?" Ron threw down his magazine and turned toward Harry. "I thought you were going to shut today?" OK, that's not a great scene, but the action of the characters implies who is speaking. In the scene in question we must ask who the primary actor is. In a sense we are asking who is the most active and dominant player? The short scene begins with Voldemort - "Nobody laughed this time: There was no mistaking the anger and contempt in Voldemort's voice. ..." Other minor inactive characters are mention, but then 'Avada Kadavra' and Voldemort closes the scene with - "Dinner, Nagini," said Voldemort softly,..." It seems clear that the /active/ focus is on Voldemort, therefore, logically Voldemort is the actor. Voldemort killed Burbage. Sometimes if we try to look too deep for hidden meaning, we miss the obvious meaning. Voldemort is the primary player in this scene, all other are mentioned in a much more passive sense. At least that's how I see it now, and that is how I interpreted it when I read it. Steve/bboyminn From greatraven at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 07:58:43 2007 From: greatraven at hotmail.com (sbursztynski) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 07:58:43 -0000 Subject: Timeline for DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177500 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Alison" wrote: > > Carol wrote : > > > Actually, there's canon for the approximate marriage date as well. > > Voldemort tells Bellatrix during the DE meeting in chapter 1 that > > the "happy event" occurred "this week" (DH Am. ed. 9) and Snape > > says that Harry will be removed from 4 Privet Drive on "Saturday > > next" (3). "Saturday next," which can only be a few days away > > unless the phrase means "a week from this coming Saturday," turns > > out to be four days before July 31 (Harry's seventeenth birthday), > > which means that it's July 27. > > Alison : > > "A week from this coming Saturday," is what I would > interpret it to mean. If it were the coming Saturday, it seems more > likely that it would be expressed as exactly that or perhaps "this > Saturday". So I would take the meeting to have occurred between 1-2 > weeks prior to 27 July. > > > Carol also wrote : > > >So if the meeting occurs on, say, Wednesday (it can't be > > Monday as the wedding has occurred the same week), that date would > > be July 24 and the wedding date would be around July 22. Obviously, > > we can't be that exact, but it seems that the Lupins were married > > in mid- to late July. > > Alison responds : > > You know, I never thought about interpreting the "this week" that > way, I had thought simply that it occurred in the last seven days. > But I agree your interpretation makes much more sense. So I would > also agree that the meeting most likely took place on either > Wednesday or Thursday. (If it were a Friday, then I would expect > Snape to refer to the date Harry is moved as tomorrow week). > > So I would bring your dates forward to be one week earlier, putting > the wedding on 15 or 16 July. But I agree there is probably still > some margin for error up to a week either way, depending on exactly > how those two phrases are interpreted. > > > Alison (madammilliemarsh) Sue: Whichever interpretation we give, it's still pretty damned narrow, and I figured nine months from marriage to announcement at Shell Cottage, which suggests, going by the fact that it's only a few days after Bill and Fleur's wedding that Lupin tells the trio Tonks is pregnant, that wizarding women must know very early! :-) > From dreadr at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 04:57:48 2007 From: dreadr at yahoo.com (dreadr) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:57:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177501 > vexingconfection: > I think the Dursleys would choose to not admit to any child > even if it were Dudley's. Even though it was hinted that > Petunia hated wizards and witches out of jealousy - I see > alot of prewar Germany in JKR's books. There were those who > choose to ignore the Nazis and hope they would go away-the > Dursleys and Fudge remind me of those. It reminds me of the > poem - I can't quote it but it went something like ... First > hey (the Nazis) came for the Socialists and I did nothing, > then they came for the Jews then they came for me and there > was no one left to help me. The Nazis also considered themselves > to be a master race deserving of leading the world and those > who were not of pure blood did not deserve to live. Does anyone > else see the similarities? I see so many similarities to Nazi Germany in these books! I think a lot of them have been discussed previously (such as Grindelwald and the pure-blood mania). I find it interesting that they were also apparent in LOTR although Tolkien denied that it was deliberate. Perhaps, both being British, the background is very understandable. I think WWII is much closer to them. (Perhaps someone who is British can enlighten me). I have a friend from Yorkshire and the war is still very real to her. One cannot help but be influenced by something that life altering especially when a lot of it takes place in one's own country. After all, I remember the uproar when Prince Harry wore a Nazi uniform to a costume party -- here in the U.S. it might be considered bad judgement but I don't think it would have caused the furore that it caused in England. Debbie From cldrolet at sympatico.ca Fri Sep 28 08:53:50 2007 From: cldrolet at sympatico.ca (Cathy Drolet) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:53:50 -0400 Subject: Disappointment Message-ID: <001001c801ad$1775df70$9bc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> No: HPFGUIDX 177502 Well, I certainly didn't expect all this hubub over one little comment. I think I"ll return to not posting after this. Carol said >>"Bloody horrible" seems like an exagerration to me.<< CathyD now: To you maybe not to me. Nor to my DH (Dear Husband in this case) who despises it almost as much as I do. >> Sure, it has flaws, including plot holes and inconsistencies. Sure, some of our favorite characters died, but we knew that was bound to happen. Sure, some of the things we anticipated from the interviews didn't happen, but does it really matter, for example, that no character performed magic late in life? Can we really judge the book by its failure to conform to expectations based on interviews? Can we fairly and realistically expect a book to echo our own religious, philosophical or political views and judge it as "bloody horrible" if it doesn't? << CathyD: Here, lealess can answer this one better than I can, and is expressing my opinion as well. >>What I got in DH was a book that lauded stupidity, instinct, breeding ("blood" and house), passivity, and loyalty over learning, planning, choice, effort, and individual responsibility; that threw out or literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing, werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death, house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly and weak); that seems oblivious to its own double standards for heroes versus bad guys, not to mention lessened standards for female characters (Hermione the gatherer and food preparer); and perhaps worst of all, was put together so sloppily, with plotholes, deus ex machina galore, 180 degree changes in character (Kreacher, Snape, Dumbledore to some extent), differing degrees of protection on Horcruxes, echoes of other works (locket=one ring, Molly=Ripley), too much teasing about Dumbledore's past, and groan, on and on and on. So, JKR did not fail to meet my expectations. She just fell far below my standards for a viable piece of fiction and far away from my personal convictions. << CathyD: Sorry, didn't quite know where to snip that one. DH fell, not just so far below my own standards, but I think it fell way below JKR's standards as well as va32h is about to point out. va32h said: >>It does not seem strange to me to condemn a book for not meeting the expectations set by the author in her six previous books. Any expectations I had of DH came from what I read in the first six books. I don't think thousands of readers pulled ideas like "house unity" out of our collective behinds with no basis for supposing that such a theme might bear fruit. << CathyD: As well as dozens of other ideas that thousands of people had. va32h: >>And honestly, I know you don't mean it this way but pleas to "read it again" just come off as terribly condescending, IMHO. It's as if the fault cannot possibly lie in the work, but only in the reader and if we would just look at it this way or that way or try harder, we'd like it, just as we ought to. << CathyD: Couldn't agree more except I think some of the people who are pleading with the disappointed to "read it again" are meaning to be condescending. va32h: >>I have, in fact, read the book about three times now, not counting the times I re-read certain passages for the purpose of discussion. And it isn't getting any better for me, sorry. << CathyD: I haven't read it again. I have re-read certain passages looking for something or other, but I will not read it again as a whole book. Not unless I have some catastrophic thing happen to my brain and I forget I've read it the first time. lealess again: >>What I don't like about saying these things on this forum is that either someone will feel I have to be saved from my own opinions and become a born-again DH-evangelist, or someone will take the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those instead of addressing the whole thing. Such is life.<< CathyD: Which is how I feel about my initial little post stirring up this big pot. Perhaps the disappointed should start a new e-mail list so we can voice our own opinions without fear of someone rushing in to try to save us from ourselves. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 28 13:59:21 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 13:59:21 -0000 Subject: Disappointment In-Reply-To: <001001c801ad$1775df70$9bc2d0d8@homesfm01ywa7v> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177503 > lealess again: > >>What I don't like about saying these things on this forum is that either someone will feel I have to be saved from my own opinions and become a born-again DH-evangelist, or someone will take the tiny instances in which I have misspoken and address those instead of addressing the whole thing. Such is life.<< > > CathyD: > Which is how I feel about my initial little post stirring up this big pot. Potioncat, back in the middle again... I feel for those who don't like DH. There is a lot to not like. In truth, this final book has shed a glaring light on weaknesses throuhgout the series. But in my case, reading differing opinions, and taking part in discussions have given me a more positive view. I may be using a form of Occlumency, because I am compartmentalizing some of the issues of DH and ignoring them a bit. I've started a very slow second read of DH. And, honestly, I'm enjoying it. In fairness, I did enjoy the first half of the book the first time around, but now I'm seeing some foreshadowing. We'll see how I feel when I'm done. I do agree strongly, that whatever one's viewpoint, one should be able to voice it, and those who feel differently should respectfully promote their opinions without disparaging others. As to "one little post stirring up this big pot." Well, in my opinion at least, that's far better than having one little post met with a thundering silence. Listen, can you hear it? From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Sep 28 14:05:50 2007 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:05:50 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177504 > > Potioncat: > > Which makes me wonder even more. How would Narcissa have reacted > if Draco had been a Squib? > > Laura: > I shudder to think. Perhaps another head on the wall at 12 > Grimmauld Place? Potioncat: You know, I don't think so. Of course, who knows what JKR would say about it? I think they would have loved him and done their best by him. I think that it's more likely they would have changed their Pure-blood opinions to a certain extent. But they might have bought into the idea that a Muggle-born had somehow stolen Draco's magic. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 14:22:25 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:22:25 -0000 Subject: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177505 > Magpie: > Obviously now that we're at the end we know it was just a > foreshadowing of the DA. They joined all three together and left > Slytherin out as the common enemy to bring the other three together, > just like the Founders did. I, personally, was wrong to think that > that song's warning and Harry's 'fat chance' about working with > Malfoy was foreshadowing they would work together. Alla: Well, of course. I mean, certainly the song could be interpreted as call for house unity. What I disagree with ( in general) that there was anything else in the books to argue that House Unity is coming. As I said, I had nothing against it at the end, if it were to come, although I was totally convinced that it will not come till House Slytherin will extinguish its evil ideology and I think half of it is done and the signs that it may come is there too. Magpie: > If somebody argued now that House Unity actually happened so the > school all stood as one, then I would disagree with that > interpretation. Alla: Of course not, at least not yet IMO. > Alla: > > > > But I never ever would call writer a bad one because he or she say > > did not bring the storyline to the conclusion I wanted. > > Magpie: > No, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say something was > a bad book because you thought the storyline was brought to an > unsatisfactory conclusion. > > To use another book series for example, I think the twist at the end > of the Dark is Rising is bad. I didn't have a specific desire for the > series, I just didn't like that twist at the end. I don't like it > personally, but I also just don't think it's a good idea period. It > doesn't ruin the ending because it's not connected to what came > before. Alla: So would that cause you to call Susan Cooper a bad writer? Obviously not from our OTC discussion, right? Because you think plot twist at the end is bad, do you think the books were written less beatifully, less heart wretchingly, etc? Would you buy that someone else calls Susan Cooper a bad writer because they did not like plot twist at the end? I am also not sure what does it mean : Magpie: > doesn't ruin the ending because it's not connected to what came > before. Alla: That plot twist did not ruin books for you because it came out of the blue? Because for me it was very nicely foreshadowed through the books. Although I hated it too and still love the books. Just as epilogue in HP for me delivered perfectly what I expected - happy ending to Harry's journey and him getting what he wanted all his life, what seems like a biggest gift for him - family > Magpie: There were a lot of times in DH > that I thought aspects of the book were dreadful. I wasn't drawn into > the book or fascinated by it. I didn't cry or get emotionally > involved in it. I still give JKR credit for the talent she has, but I > think my disappointment in DH went far beyond not having plot twists > that I wanted to see happen. They were really more about not liking > the stuff there. Alla: Well, sure, as I said, I totally get it then, just not sure what to debate. You did not like the story itself. I understand. > Magpie: > If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and the > thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more > interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. Alla: Well, sure, it may be, or maybe reader expected something that writer was never interested in and misread the signs, you know? As I said, I expected more storytime for Marauders and Snape past ( prank). I think I totally misread the signs of JKR being much interested in them. NOT that I expected them to overpower Harry's story, just something more significant. I am not calling it a misstep on JKR's behalf. Or evil Snape - same thing. JKR was obviously interested in showing how Snape's love for Lily affected his life journey ( not that I did not see that it is coming, LOLLYPOPS I mean, I just thought it would come with Evil or OFH Snape). Same thing - no way I would call it misstep on JKR's behalf. IMO of course. Magpie: > As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a > generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a > storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good stuff > that's a criticism of her as a writer. Alla: I keep bringing up Tolstoy, but it is just because I reread that book so very often. I think he avoided good stuff by killing Prince Andrew. If somebody tells me that this means Tolstoy is a bad writer, if I thought that, I would expect people to laugh and I think they would be correct. Magpie: My criticisms of Draco's > storyline aren't just that he didn't do X that I imagined him doing, > but that I thought he was all over the place with no purpose, he > confused me and seemed pointless whenever he showed up and just > petered out after a really good beginning in the first chapter. Alla: THIS I totally understand and see where you coming from. Magpie: And > that it was a waste of the set up in HBP, yes. That did raise my > expectations for him to make an important choice. JKR seemed to > instead want the point to be that he was frozen, which is her choice > but led for me to the Malfoys being pretty boring and left me feeling > like this coming of age series regressed. Alla: And this - not at all. Didn't you said that you go back to reread the scenes with another expectations in mind? Now we know that set up in HBP was set up for something different. So how is it a waste of time if it worked for different choice that author made? JMO, Alla Potioncat: > I do agree strongly, that whatever one's viewpoint, one should be > able to voice it, and those who feel differently should respectfully > promote their opinions without disparaging others. > > As to "one little post stirring up this big pot." Well, in my opinion > at least, that's far better than having one little post met with a > thundering silence. Listen, can you hear it? > Alla: Thank you dear :). I am very strongly convinced though that if one posts here, one should expect their opinions to be challenged. I NEVER tried to change anybody's mind and obviously not going to, but if person says the book is bad BECAUSE and that because is not something I see in the text, I am going to say so. And vice versa is true of course. If I say the book is good BECAUSE and somebody does not see it in the text, they should be able to say so. Oh, and yeah, if somebody wishes for me to ignore their posts, do let me know LOL. Believe me, I do NOT argue just for the sake of arguing and do not want to hurt anybody's feelings. BUT there are times I will be arguing a lot. :) Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Sep 28 15:17:10 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:17:10 -0000 Subject: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177506 > Alla: > > Well, of course. I mean, certainly the song could be interpreted as > call for house unity. What I disagree with ( in general) that there > was anything else in the books to argue that House Unity is coming. > > As I said, I had nothing against it at the end, if it were to come, > although I was totally convinced that it will not come till House > Slytherin will extinguish its evil ideology and I think half of it is > done and the signs that it may come is there too. Magpie: And I think it didn't happen, and it isn't supposed to happen, and it's no more done than it was at the beginning of PS/SS. The Sorting Hat's song IS a call for House Unity. That's explicit. It's just not a sign that it is a call that is going to be listened to and followed in the story. But while it didn't pan out as a sign that that was going to happen in canon, compared to the supposed signs that it's halfway there in the epilogue it could have been written on Stone Tablets, imo. Not only is it a warning given by an authority figure that says if they don't do this the school will fall, it's halfway through the series and we can see whether or not it pans out (it doesn't). The stuff from the epilogue is like moving the Sorting Hat's warning to the last three pages, and reducing it to Harry's son saying, "I'd leave school if I ever had to unify with the other houses!" and Harry replying that that's a little extreme to leave school, but that it's not something he would have to worry about anyway because he won't have to be friends with anybody in other houses unless he wants to...and then claiming that House Unity happened or is happening before our eyes. > Magpie: > > > If somebody argued now that House Unity actually happened so the > > school all stood as one, then I would disagree with that > > interpretation. > > Alla: > > Of course not, at least not yet IMO. Magpie: Not yet and not ever as far as we'll ever know, imo. Not only is the book over, the story's been over for 19 years. > > Magpie: > > No, but I think it would be perfectly reasonable to say something > was > > a bad book because you thought the storyline was brought to an > > unsatisfactory conclusion. > > > > To use another book series for example, I think the twist at the > end > > of the Dark is Rising is bad. I didn't have a specific desire for > the > > series, I just didn't like that twist at the end. I don't like it > > personally, but I also just don't think it's a good idea period. It > > doesn't ruin the ending because it's not connected to what came > > before. > > Alla: > > So would that cause you to call Susan Cooper a bad writer? Obviously > not from our OTC discussion, right? Because you think plot twist at > the end is bad, do you think the books were written less beatifully, > less heart wretchingly, etc? > > Would you buy that someone else calls Susan Cooper a bad writer > because they did not like plot twist at the end? Magpie: No, I wouldn't call her a bad writer because of that, as I said. I think "she's a bad writer" is far too blanket a statement to refer to her doing one plot twist a person didn't like if you like everything else. Alla: > > I am also not sure what does it mean : > > Magpie: > > doesn't ruin the ending because it's not connected to what came > > before. > > Alla: > > That plot twist did not ruin books for you because it came out of the > blue? Because for me it was very nicely foreshadowed through the > books. Although I hated it too and still love the books. Magpie: It doesn't shed a different light on any of the themes or things that came before it and there's nothing after it. Knowing that Merriman is going to remove the Drews' memories doesn't change what's going on when I re-read it. Alla: > > Just as epilogue in HP for me delivered perfectly what I expected - > happy ending to Harry's journey and him getting what he wanted all > his life, what seems like a biggest gift for him - family Magpie: That's exactly what it gave me too. Nothing about House Unity or social change in the WW. Harry has obtained his middle class existance with a family--that was the goal and that's what he got, which imo says something very clear about the meaning and priorities of the story. TDiR ends with the suggestion that man will now be in control of the world, and that the human characters will have the responsibility of making their world a better place whether they remember the specifics or not. > > Magpie: > > > If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and > the > > thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more > > interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. > > Alla: > > Well, sure, it may be, or maybe reader expected something that writer > was never interested in and misread the signs, you know? > > As I said, I expected more storytime for Marauders and Snape past ( > prank). I think I totally misread the signs of JKR being much > interested in them. NOT that I expected them to overpower Harry's > story, just something more significant. Magpie: Yes, I agree she was just never interested in them. But I think there's a grey area where it's not just about the reader having unreasonable expectations. If somebody is reading the book and is far more interested in other stuff than the stuff that's going on, it can mean that the stuff going on isn't interesting. Like, I thought we'd find out more about the Prank, but I had no specific expectations for it. However I thought the answer that I did get was lame and killed the interest I'd had to begin with. This could be because the answer wasn't satisfying, or else because it wasn't presented in a satisfying way. I had predicted LOLLIPOPS and think it was a good idea, but the handling of it fell flat for me. To contrast, the revelations at the end of GoF and PoA don't fall flat for me. > Magpie: > > As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a > > generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a > > storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good > stuff > > that's a criticism of her as a writer. > > Alla: > > I keep bringing up Tolstoy, but it is just because I reread that book > so very often. I think he avoided good stuff by killing Prince Andrew. > > If somebody tells me that this means Tolstoy is a bad writer, if I > thought that, I would expect people to laugh and I think they would > be correct. Magpie: Tolstoy is a good writer but you don't agree with his decision about Prince Andrew. But someone's response to DH may not be like that situation. There's a difference between "I think he avoided some good stuff by doing this" and "The author wrote a tedious book about stuff I wasn't and couldn't get interested in." That's why somebody might like War & Peace and not like DH. Also some things getting avoided are more important than others and go more to the heart of the book. Endings can have a huge affect on how the rest of the book reads. Sometimes you realize you were wrong about something and you adapt and enjoy what the author was writing. Sometimes you realize you were just wasting your time thinking there was something interesting there when there wasn't for you. > Magpie: > And > > that it was a waste of the set up in HBP, yes. That did raise my > > expectations for him to make an important choice. JKR seemed to > > instead want the point to be that he was frozen, which is her > choice > > but led for me to the Malfoys being pretty boring and left me > feeling > > like this coming of age series regressed. > Alla: > > And this - not at all. Didn't you said that you go back to reread the > scenes with another expectations in mind? Now we know that set up in > HBP was set up for something different. So how is it a waste of time > if it worked for different choice that author made? Magpie: Because it didn't work, imo. When I go back and read the earlier scenes knowing where the author was actually going it doesn't make it make a different kind of sense, it just makes the earlier scenes pointless too. It turned out the interesting bits were by accident, that everyone's motivations were flatter. I think the flaw here is more in the story than in my as a reader on this one. It's the type of thing one would see in a review all the time. So in this case I don't think the author handled the storyline very well, and I think the storyline was a weak choice to begin with. -m From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 15:45:14 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:45:14 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177507 So, I am rereading the whole shebang all over again, and I have come to the conclusion that Slytherin House was never supposed to be part of the Hogwarts community at large. I have to say, it was never glaring until DH and all this discussion at HPfGU about the prejudice against Slytherins, but it's very obvious to me now that Slytherin House was set up to be the bad guys from day one and there was little to no hope of them becoming part of the larger community. Which, by the way, I am totally fine with. Usually, in literature, there is a bad guy, and Slytherins are it in these books. In rereading the books for the first time since DH, I can see so much more clearly that the Slytherins were really bad - not just misunderstood - but bad people. The occasional Slytherin was ok, but by and large, no, they are not good people and they are not going to turn out to be good people...which begs the logical question, Why have Slytherin House at all? Why have a house inside an institution of learning that is detrimental to that institution and is set up from the get-go to produce dark wizards? That's where my problem lies with the plot. I don't mind having a population of dark wizards that are just evil, with no real reason why. That's reality - some folks are just bad. Fine. However, it's not really reasonable to welcome all those dark wizards into a school with normal people and put them in a house that will only encourage those dark tendencies. I guess that never really bothered me before I knew how it would all turn out. I guess I had more hope that Slytherin would turn it all around...but they didn't, and know I can see clearly JKR's intentions with the House. I believe we all saw Slytherins as much more ambiguous than she did. I certainly saw room for goodness and room for improvement on my first 80 reads! : ) But after DH, this reread is very different. It's different on mant levels, not just Slytherin, but that one is most glaring in my mind at the moment. Because when the Slytherins were just kind of bullies and jerks, but not BAD, that was understandable. Now that I see the deliberateness of making them evil...I don't understand why Hogwarts just didn't get rid of Slytherin House after Salazar Slytherin split. Some canon on what I mean about the deliberateness: SS, Collector's Edition, page 77, Draco: "...but I know I'll be in Slytherin, all our family have been..." THEN on page 110, "I've heard of his family," said Ron darkly. "They were some of the first to come back to our side after You-Know-Who disappeared...Malfoy's father didn't need an excuse to go over to the Dark Side." Linking Malfoys with generations of Slytherins and they're all "Dark." Pretty obvious. Same book, page 119, "Perhaps it was Harry's imagination, after all he'd heard about Slytherin, but he thought they looked like an unpleasant lot." CoS, Amer. Ed., page 15O and 151, Prof. Binns, "A rift began to grow between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin wanted to be more *selective* about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families...Slytheri, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic." I was surprised to find such strong language and history against Slytherin House...I hadn't really noticed it before. I know that sounds ridiculous, but in my own mind, there was an ambiguity about Slytherin House that allowed me to see these events in a more sympathetic light. Now, I see that any ambiguity was really only in my own mind, and JKR meant for the Slytherins to be evil from day one. So, that being said, I don't think there's a lot of basis for an argument about Slytherin House's loyalties and McGonagall's actions in DH. Far from being odd or out of place, I think that moment was brewing from the start...at least in JKR's mind. I also have to reiterate that I find it strange for Slytherin House to even be a part of the school at all, seeing them in the light of DH and the new slant I have on them. Why not get rid of the House after Slytherin departed? Ok, my hand is cramping. That's all for now, Katie From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 15:44:56 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:44:56 -0000 Subject: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177508 > > Alla: >> > As I said, I had nothing against it at the end, if it were to > come, > > although I was totally convinced that it will not come till House > > Slytherin will extinguish its evil ideology and I think half of it > is > > done and the signs that it may come is there too. > > Magpie: > And I think it didn't happen, and it isn't supposed to happen, and > it's no more done than it was at the beginning of PS/SS. Alla: Right, just to be clear. I am NOT saying that it did happen. What I am saying is that half of what I thought needed to be done did happen in my view - Slytherin house extinguishing their evil ideology, being diluted? AND I am saying that I see the signs that the unity is coming in next generation. I understand that you disagree that it is coming as well, just wanted to be clear on what I am saying. In my view it definitely did NOT happen in the books, just the symbols in the epilogue tell me that it is coming and the contributions of individual Slyths tell me that as well. > Magpie: > No, I wouldn't call her a bad writer because of that, as I said. I > think "she's a bad writer" is far too blanket a statement to refer > to her doing one plot twist a person didn't like if you like > everything else. Alla: Agreed. > Magpie: > It doesn't shed a different light on any of the themes or things > that came before it and there's nothing after it. Knowing that > Merriman is going to remove the Drews' memories doesn't change > what's going on when I re-read it. Alla: Oh I see. > Alla: > > > > > Just as epilogue in HP for me delivered perfectly what I expected - > > > happy ending to Harry's journey and him getting what he wanted all > > his life, what seems like a biggest gift for him - family > > Magpie: > That's exactly what it gave me too. Nothing about House Unity or > social change in the WW. Harry has obtained his middle class > existance with a family--that was the goal and that's what he got, > which imo says something very clear about the meaning and priorities > of the story. TDiR ends with the suggestion that man will now be in > control of the world, and that the human characters will have the > responsibility of making their world a better place whether they > remember the specifics or not. Alla: And DH ends with suggestion that Harry scar was not hurting him for niteeen years. All was well. Not all was well with Harry and his family, but all was well. I think all was well with the world is a reasonable intepretation too. Nothing about new evil lord coming or anything like that. All was well. Not saying that you have to like it, just do not see it as fundamentally different from TDiR in that sense. I mean, men will be in control, but Will is still there to watch over just in case? And maybe call Old ones back to fight their battles for mankind again? And then erase their memories all over again? I mean, would it not be the reasonable interpretation of that ending? > > Alla: > > > > And this - not at all. Didn't you said that you go back to reread > the > > scenes with another expectations in mind? Now we know that set up > in > > HBP was set up for something different. So how is it a waste of > time > > if it worked for different choice that author made? > > Magpie: > Because it didn't work, imo. Alla: Oh, okay. From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Fri Sep 28 15:53:19 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:53:19 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177509 "Steve" wrote: > Technically you are right[Spiral vs. Helix], > but common overrides technical when > it comes to writing. If any character has a passion for being technically correct it is Hermione and if there is ever a time to be technically correct it is in potions class where precision is paramount. > Shaun Hately did an astological analysis > of the particular scene I think you mean astronomical analysis, and maybe you could see a little bit of Orion very near the Horizon, maybe, but there is no way you're going to see Venus at midnight. I have no doubt that if an editor had explained to JKR why Saturn and Scorpius would be better she would have agreed to change those two words. One other thing about book 7 confuses me, when Hagrid is running toward the spiders yelling "don't hurt them" is he telling the kids not to hurt the spiders or the spiders not to hurt the kids, I think it's the second but I'm not sure. Eggplant From prep0strus at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 15:55:13 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:55:13 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177510 > >Lealess: > Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House that > were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more persuasive? Is > Harry's comment that Slytherin would gain an excellent student, > immediately followed up by the suggestion that Al can still choose > Gryffindor over Slytherin like his dad did, your data? because the > added comment totally subverts the first part for me. > > Suppose JKR is trying to reach people who are biased against > Slytherins, or let's say, against non-white people, or against > homosexuals, or little people, or just non-English people. Do you > think she's done a good job of reaching them and opening their minds? > Actually, I wonder if she was even aiming for an anti-prejudice message. Prep0strus: I think she was, but perhaps not in the way we thought she was going to. I think one big problem is that she appeared to show that there was a human side to Slytherin - that they're not all bad, in every way. And so, there were expectations that in this final book (or, better, before the final book even) we would see some of that. See a sorting hat song that extolled something worthwhile about slytherin, saw a character that managed to incorporate aspects of slytherin without being disliked, saw the house achieve its place as a full equal to the other houses. And some people, based on the small nuggets of potential we have been given are able to see some of that. To see Slytherins as real people. Then, it is possible to see a world in which she fulfilled what we expected, or perhaps to see what a lot of people seem to see - a world turned upside down. one in which Slytherins are prejudiced against, where every flaw shown by a non-slytherin is a mark against their character and every small non-evil done by a slytherin is proof that they are legitimate people. And that the way other people treat slytherin and are not punished for it is proof of gang mentality and bigotry at its worst. But, if you take the other side of it, and think that she did NOT fulfill our expectations, it's a little different. There is some disappointment if you expected that of Slytherin, and confusion as to why she included hints towards house unity and that slytherins aren't bad. There could I suppose be a delicious joy if you did NOT want that to happen, and are happy to see that slytherins are as naughty as ever. however, I think that in the end, Slytherins aren't people. My opinion is such that i'm disappointed in the hints we were given about slytherin possibly being equals, but that I do not believe that she achieved this goal. However, I don't believe that they are 'prejudiced against' either. And this is because they're WRONG. And that's the part that's frustrating, because we've been led to believe that they are equals, so how could it be ok to look down on them? Doesn't that make the other characters wrong? I think, in this story, it doesn't. I think Slytherin is not a house full of actual fully formed people and characters. I think it is a representation of everything JKR thinks is bad: prejudice, bigotry, racism, unchecked ambition, disregard for others, base meanness.... and when other characters look down on and spit on slytherin, that is what they are spitting on. they are not discriminating against a group of people - they are discriminating against racism. And since racism is wrong, that's ok. It's not very satisfying, and very frustrating considering what we've been through with our expectations throughout the books... but it makes more sense to me than pitying the slytherins and condemning griffindors. because the griffindors ARE right. the slytherins ARE wrong. there is good and bad, and slytherins represent one of those. jkr does make griffindors flawed - it is difficult to define them as represented as perfect beings. but even harder to represent slytherins as equals who deserve equal treatment. it might be wrong to treat another group of people as less than you, which is how the slytherins are treated. but if slytherins simply represent cruel dictators and petty bigots, then it's not only ok to look down on them, but a good thing to look down on them - because you are looking down on evil. i don't think slytherin is simply the racists, but racism itself, which is why jkr has apparently made it ok to treat them as less than people. i'm kind of meandering around the point i'm trying to make. and i know it doesn't change how anyone looks at the books, because we have our own expectations and we put different importance of meaning on different parts. but, primarily, i don't think that prejudice against slytherin is real prejudice in jkr's mind, because i think that slytherins are the idea of prejudidice itself. so, yes, i think she was aiming for an 'anti-prejudice' message, but it just doesn't count to be prejudiced against slytherin, because that is prejudice against prejudice - and that's always a good thing, right? ~Adam (Prep0strus) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 28 16:07:59 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:07:59 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177511 Lealess: > And maybe no progress had been made at all. Maybe Ron's "Look who it > is" was not supposed to echo James' comment before Snape's Worst > Memory. Pippin: Of course it was. But then why would it not matter that from that point things unfold quite differently? instead of reacting like a hunted animal, Draco responds politely, nor is this politeness treated as deceptive. Why would it not matter that no one but James seems to be spoiling for a fight? And he gets slapped down for it, not told he's being a right-thinking Gryffindor and bully for you. To insist that there are no more problems at all in the wizarding world would be wish fulfillment, and I don't think the all is well is supposed to indicate that. There are still problems, but there isn't a Voldemort around that Harry has to fight, and there hasn't so far arisen another one. As you say, it would be obvious if the WW were at war. To interpret that nothing has changed at all, so as to be able to condemn JKR not only for disappointing some readers but for being false to her own storyline seems as wishful to me as saying that the book is flawless. But why did she leave things so open to interpretation? To me that seems obvious -- it's because in the real world that's the way things are. You never have all the facts, except when it's too late. To write a story that correlates with WWII and not have anything that's comparable to the firebombing of Dresden or the internment of Japanese-Americans would be incredibly dishonest, IMO. At the time those decisions had broad support. Twenty years after the fact, most of the people who did those things still felt that those were good decisions, and to deny that would be dishonest too. And sixty years later many people still think that they were good decisions, or at least the best that could have been made at the time. The debate goes on, so why should JKR treat it as settled? That'd be, um, wish fulfillment. Lealess: > Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House that > were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more persuasive? Pippin: Friendship. Bravery. Are those not the things that make a great wizard? A great human being? Are they somehow poisoned by association with Harry? Is there one kind of greatness for Gryffindors and another kind for Slytherins? I thought DH was showing very clearly that you don't have to be a Gryffindor to be a great wizard, just as you don't have to be a Slytherin to do things that are cowardly or hateful. They're all human, IMO, and if that makes them a moral mess at times, that's human too. Lealess: > Suppose JKR is trying to reach people who are biased against > Slytherins, or let's say, against non-white people, or against > homosexuals, or little people, or just non-English people. Do you > think she's done a good job of reaching them and opening their minds? > Actually, I wonder if she was even aiming for an anti-prejudice message. Pippin: Suppose the minds she's trying to open are the minds of people who think that because they're against prejudice they can't be prejudiced themselves. What if she wants to show that she agrees with the educated opinion is that prejudice is universal and the only weapon we have is constant never-ending vigilance? In that case prejudice can't be eliminated, and to show it as totally gone would be wish-fulfillment. I don't think anyone is saying that they read the ending as prejudice being eliminated anyway. But to me it's clearly recognized that it's a problem if children are being turned against each other by their parents. Harry sees it more clearly than Ron, and Ron sees it more clearly than Draco, but they all see things more clearly than before, and more clearly than their parents did. > >Pippin: > >Harry saw Snape as a coward in HBP. How is being able to > >recognize Snape's bravery not seeing Snape more clearly? > > Lealess: > To address this one point, bravery is one aspect of Snape's > personality. It happens to be one we know Harry values. What else > does Harry see about Snape that may be important to Snape but isn't > important to Harry? What about his work, the destroyed potions book, > the knowledge that went with him? What about the positions he held, > the skills he showed in doing his jobs? Pippin: "You are named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts." This, from the guy who couldn't get his mouth around the word "Professor" ! In honoring Snape as Headmaster, Harry honors all that Snape did to get and keep that job, including being Head of Slytherin, a master of deception, a potions master who had a higher than usual pass rate, the inventor of spells that kept Harry, Ron and Hermione alive and out of the clutches of the DE's, protecting students from the worst of what the Carrows were capable of, and all the other things that we know Snape did. It's a very compact way of recognizing all that Snape did, and the honor is in Albus Severus's name. Lealess: > "Of course Al's heard the story before..." Said with such conviction! > How do you know? This is the Wizarding World, where people never > tell anyone anything important, especially if it would avoid > unnecessary strife! Pippin: Because everyone in the train is staring at Harry. He's still famous. His story is told, and when Harry tells his story, once to Voldemort and all people in the Great Hall, once to Ron and Hermione and once to Al, three times in very few pages, Snape is part of it. Then there's the interview about Harry trying to get Snape's portrait into the Headmaster's office, (oooh, I wonder where it is now? Harry's house?) and Rita Skeeter's book on Snape, which she can't be stopped from writing. Lealess: > Harry was wrong about Snape. Pippin: If Harry realized he was wrong because he realized that Snape loved his mother and followed Dumbledore, what difference does that make? He still realized that he was wrong. He never imagined that Snape was the sort of person who could love his mother. He never imagined that Snape could be a loyal follower of Dumbledore. He had to change his concept of Snape to realize that Snape had done those things. Now I realize that in the view of some Dumbledore's ethics are crappy, and so following Dumbledore is a bad thing, therefore all that's happened is that Snape turned out to be crappy when what should have happened is that Harry should have seen the Slytherin light. BTW, what *is* the Slytherin light? I'm asking this seriously, what virtues did you hope to see revealed in Slytherin or what virtues did you see ignored, and what would you have liked to see Harry do to recognize them? Aside from the missing funerals, I mean. It's my experience that children squirm through funerals, if it isn't someone they were really close to. Harry didn't even pay much attention to Dumbledore's. I can't blame JKR for not putting in another, which her younger audience would probably skip or skim over. In which case Snape would not get his due. Pippin From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 16:07:31 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 16:07:31 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177512 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Katie" wrote: > Now that I see the deliberateness of making them evil...I don't > understand why Hogwarts just didn't get rid of Slytherin House after > Salazar Slytherin split. > > Some canon on what I mean about the deliberateness: > > SS, Collector's Edition, page 77, Draco: "...but I know I'll be in > Slytherin, all our family have been..." THEN on page 110, "I've heard > of his family," said Ron darkly. "They were some of the first to come > back to our side after You-Know-Who disappeared...Malfoy's father > didn't need an excuse to go over to the Dark Side." > > Linking Malfoys with generations of Slytherins and they're > all "Dark." Pretty obvious. lizzyben: Yep. And it's not just that individual people are evil, but entire families are evil ("all our family have been in Slytherin"), and entire generations of family are evil (generations of "Dark" Malfoys.) So... Hagrid was right! "Malfoys are bad blood, no good can come of them." There's actually evil *bloodlines*. Slytherins are bad blood, and no good can come of them. Oh sure, occasionally a random genetic mutation produces a good person from a bad family (Sirius); just like occasionally a genetic mutation produces a magical person in a Muggle family. But blood is destiny, and Gryffindors & Slytherins are essentially sorted at birth. Katie: "A rift began to grow > between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin wanted to be more > *selective* about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that > magical learning should be kept within all-magic families...Slytheri, > according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none > would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the > school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of > Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of > all who were unworthy to study magic." lizzyben: And at the end of DH, the same situation happens, in the reverse. the Chosen One re-enters the school, the Chamber of Secrets is re- opened, and the school is purged of all who were unworthy to study magic (the Slytherins). YAY! Ethnic cleansing! Katie: > I was surprised to find such strong language and history against > Slytherin House...I hadn't really noticed it before. I know that > sounds ridiculous, but in my own mind, there was an ambiguity about > Slytherin House that allowed me to see these events in a more > sympathetic light. Now, I see that any ambiguity was really only in > my own mind, and JKR meant for the Slytherins to be evil from day > one. I also have to > reiterate that I find it strange for Slytherin House to even be a > part of the school at all, seeing them in the light of DH and the new > slant I have on them. Why not get rid of the House after Slytherin > departed? lizzyben: Exactly, they have no right to exist. The House should be purged from the school because they are unworthy to become wizards. They have "bad blood", which makes them evil since birth, and they are inferior to the superior worthy Houses. Howarts should be more *selective* in who it allows to enter - the unworthy should be excluded. All this is bad enough, but then DH invokes the heavy Nazi imagery to make it even worse. It's downright evil. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 17:28:13 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:28:13 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177513 > Pippin: >> To insist that there are no more problems at all in the wizarding > world would be wish fulfillment, and I don't think the all is well > is supposed to indicate that. There are still problems, but > there isn't a Voldemort around that Harry has to fight, and there > hasn't so far arisen another one. As you say, it would > be obvious if the WW were at war. > Alla: Oh oh neither do I but to me it definitely signals improvement in WW. I mean, yeah, here goes another exaggeration of the point (waves to Steve). I was trying to say that sign of change is there. NOT that everything is necessarily perfect, just better. I mean, when did JKR devote long descriptions to staff like that? To me IMO it again shows how little she can say in few words. I mean, I understand that it may work for people or not, I just disagree that it is not on the page. I seem to remember people arguing that Dumbledore making sure that Harry talks about his experience in graveyard in GoF symbolically shows that he was healed after that **ONE** conversation and therefore for them it was totally cool that Harry was left alone all summer without friendly contact. It did NOT work for me, that intepretation I mean. I was very angry at DD for not letting Harry contact with his friends that summer. BUT of course it was on the page IMO. That interpretation. It was a symbol, shortcut, for Harry many sessions with psychiatrist IMO. I found it fall flat for me, but I get how in the book like this it often works and same way "all is well" works for me or Harry telling his son about Slytherin totally works for me as shortcut as well. Take another example. Snape's "do not call her that" to Phineas, when he called Hermione mudblood. Do we get pages and pages of Snape thinking about how bad this word is, how really sorry he should be that he ever called Lily such? Nope, we get Lily shutting the door and we get him saying it to Hermione, that is it. And it works beatifully for me. I have no doubt that he changed his racist attitudes now. No doubts at all. It took me one reread to even catch that remark to Phineas, but OMG I think it is so very cool that JKR can say so much in so few words. Again IMO. >> Pippin: > "You are named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts." This, from the > guy who couldn't get his mouth around the word "Professor" ! > It's a very compact way of recognizing all that Snape did, > and the honor is in Albus Severus's name. > Alla: Well said :) As I said I just cannot be more amased how many things she can convey in so few words :) IMO of course From lealess at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 18:10:51 2007 From: lealess at yahoo.com (lealess) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:10:51 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177514 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: >Pippin: > >Of course it was. But then why would it not matter that from that >point things unfold quite differently? instead of reacting like a >hunted animal, Draco responds politely, nor is this politeness >treated as deceptive. > They are adults now. Adults are more in control than children. I interpret this scene to show that Draco recognizes his better, Harry, and nothing more. Am I wrong? Probably. >Why would it not matter that no one but James seems to be >spoiling for a fight? And he gets slapped down for it, not >told he's being a right-thinking Gryffindor and bully for you. The Weasleys tried to keep their kids in line, and you saw how successful that was. Parents often try to instill good values in their children. But when little James is on the train, all bets are off. He's going to Hogwarts, where teachers have traditionally looked the other way. >To insist that there are no more problems at all in the wizarding >world would be wish fulfillment, and I don't think the all is well >is supposed to indicate that. There are still problems, but >there isn't a Voldemort around that Harry has to fight, and there >hasn't so far arisen another one. As you say, it would >be obvious if the WW were at war. The all was well remark I took to refer to Harry's life, not necessarily the WW. And, as I said, it wouldn't necessarily be obvious if the WW was at war, drawing from the RL example of the U.S. which is at war, and yet all is well for many people here. >To interpret that nothing has changed at all, so as to be able >to condemn JKR not only for disappointing some >readers but for being false to her own storyline seems as >wishful to me as saying that the book is flawless. Saying that nothing has changed at all is one path that a person can follow from the end of the book. There are several others, as writers of fanfic and RP communities will no doubt demonstrate. If I follow that path, it is not because I wish to condemn JKR, because that gives me no joy, frankly. I don't think she was false to her own storyline. I just didn't like the storyline. I didn't feel there was much there and what there was was poorly executed overall. But others love the books -- more power to them. I just can't see, for example, championing the WW as reformed when the evidence for that is strictly a personal reading, involving bringing a lot of elements into the story that create a second epilogue, as it were. I don't know what this is called in logical terms... inductive inference? It's like starting with the statement that all was well and working backwards to graft onto the story the elements that are needed to make everything well. What is "all"? I say it's Harry's personal life. You say it's the WW. Neither of us is strictly interpreting, however -- we are putting our own gloss on the ending. >But why did she leave things so open to interpretation? To me that >seems obvious -- it's because in the real world that's the >way things are. You never have all the facts, except when it's >too late. > >To write a story that correlates with WWII and not have anything >that's comparable to the firebombing of Dresden or the internment >of Japanese-Americans would be incredibly dishonest, IMO. At >the time those decisions had broad support. Twenty years >after the fact, most of the people who did those things still >felt that those were good decisions, and to deny that would be >dishonest too. And sixty years later many people still >think that they were good decisions, or at least the best that >could have been made at the time. The debate goes on, so >why should JKR treat it as settled? That'd be, um, wish fulfillment. I'm a little confused by this, actually, but why did she write this story the way she did? Right now I'd say that she had a bunch of cool ideas, but was unable to carry them off in the end. They just didn't fit into her real story. That's just speculation. I don't know what's in JKR's head. That's just the way the book read to me. >Lealess: >> Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House >> that were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more >> persuasive? > >Pippin: >Friendship. Bravery. >Are those not the things that make a great wizard? >A great human being? >Are they somehow poisoned by association with Harry? >Is there one kind of greatness for Gryffindors and another >kind for Slytherins? I'd say Slytherins want to be recognized and valued for achievement. I'd say they want power of one kind or another. They want to attain their goals. If I were a Slytherin, that's what I would want to be recognized for. I think Snape got all those things. I don't think Harry explicitly or implicitly acknowledged them. What makes someone a great human being or wizard? Our views will probably differ on this. As a Ravenclaw, I would say knowledge and creativity. A Gryffindor will say friendship and bravery. I'd say that either comes cheap, because they are not what I value. A Gryffindor would find me incomprehensible. That's why I don't think Harry understands Snape except through the filter of his own values, which he imposes on Snape after death, allowing him to accept Snape as a hero. >I thought DH was showing very clearly that you don't have to be >a Gryffindor to be a great wizard, just as you don't have to be >a Slytherin to do things that are cowardly or hateful. They're >all human, IMO, and if that makes them a moral mess at >times, that's human too. I guess others disagree with that. Snape had to become a virtual Gryffindor in order to become great. Pettigrew -- we are never told his story, so there's nothing I can say about that aberration. Why didn't she tell his story? I guess it just didn't fit into the larger theme. >Lealess: >> Suppose JKR is trying to reach people who are biased against >> Slytherins, or let's say, against non-white people, or against >> homosexuals, or little people, or just non-English people. Do you >> think she's done a good job of reaching them and opening their >> minds? Actually, I wonder if she was even aiming for an anti- >> prejudice message. > >Pippin: >Suppose the minds she's trying to open are the minds of people who >think that because they're against prejudice they can't be prejudiced >themselves. What if she wants to show that she agrees with the >educated opinion is that prejudice is universal and the only weapon >we have is constant never-ending vigilance? > >In that case prejudice can't be eliminated, and to show it as totally >gone would be wish-fulfillment. I don't think anyone is saying that >they read the ending as prejudice being eliminated anyway. Well, I agree with you that prejudice probably won't be eliminated and vigilance is a good thing. I think she didn't show it being eliminated, nor did she show constant vigilance. I'm a bit confused by what you're saying, so I should probably say no more. Are you saying JKR is reflecting reality and that's a good thing? How am I supposed to get an anti-prejudice message out of that? >But to me it's clearly recognized that it's a problem if children >are being turned against each other by their parents. >Harry sees it more clearly than Ron, and Ron sees it more >clearly than Draco, but they all see things more >clearly than before, and more clearly than their parents did. Sure, I guess. Why not? >Pippin: >"You are named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts." This, from the >guy who couldn't get his mouth around the word "Professor" ! >In honoring Snape as Headmaster, Harry honors all that Snape >did to get and keep that job, including being Head of Slytherin, >a master of deception, a potions master who had a higher than usual >pass rate, the inventor of spells that kept Harry, Ron and Hermione >alive and out of the clutches of the DE's, protecting students from >the worst of what the Carrows were capable of, and all the other >things that we know Snape did. This is quite a jump from a statement of fact to encompassing all that is in Harry's heart and mind. Harry only mentions bravery. >It's a very compact way of recognizing all that Snape did, >and the honor is in Albus Severus's name. For me, it's a statement of fact and nothing more. >Lealess: >> "Of course Al's heard the story before..." Said with such >> conviction! How do you know? This is the Wizarding World, >> where people never >> tell anyone anything important, especially if it would avoid >> unnecessary strife! > >Pippin: >Because everyone in the train is staring at Harry. He's still famous. >His story is told, and when Harry tells his story, once to Voldemort >and all people in the Great Hall, once to Ron and Hermione and once >to Al, three times in very few pages, Snape is part of it. Snape is part of it as a brave man who followed Dumbledore. This doesn't mean that Al knows anything about Snape, even that. And Ron had to joke that *he* was the famous one, so I could say that they don't even talk about Harry's past much. >Then there's the interview about Harry trying to get Snape's >portrait into the Headmaster's office, (oooh, I wonder where it is >now? Harry's house?) and Rita Skeeter's book on Snape, which she >can't be stopped from writing. Then there's the interview about Snape not being a hero, well, maybe an anti-hero, and being a horrible person. Then there's the interview about Snape abandoning his post and so not getting a Headmaster's portrait in the first place. And, wherever Snape's portrait is now, it is in the realm of fanfiction. >Lealess: >> Harry was wrong about Snape. > >Pippin: >If Harry realized he was wrong because he realized that Snape >loved his mother and followed Dumbledore, what difference >does that make? He still realized that he was wrong. He >never imagined that Snape was the sort of person who could >love his mother. He never imagined that Snape could be a >loyal follower of Dumbledore. He had to change his concept >of Snape to realize that Snape had done those things. He had to see Snape as a lovesick puppy with Gryffindor traits. I'm curious as to whether you have changed your concept of Snape based on DH, because most people I know have. Unfortunately, they see him as less independent and competent, as more pathetic. As for Harry, I really can't surmise how his concept of Snape changed except that he saw him as brave. >Now I realize that in the view of some Dumbledore's ethics >are crappy, and so following Dumbledore is a bad thing, >therefore all that's happened is that Snape turned out to >be crappy when what should have happened is that Harry >should have seen the Slytherin light. > >BTW, what *is* the Slytherin light? I'm asking this seriously, >what virtues did you hope to see revealed in Slytherin >or what virtues did you see ignored, and what would you >have liked to see Harry do to recognize them? I hope I answered that above. I think mindlessly following anyone is a bad thing, actually. As for the "Slytherin light," I think Harry, and perhaps JKR, are incapable of acknowledging that ambition is not a fatal flaw or that networking is not always insincere or that seeking power is always done for selfish reasons. I can't fill in events that did not happen to assure that Harry acknowledged these things in DH. Tired and at work, lealess From anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 18:16:34 2007 From: anigrrrl2 at yahoo.com (Katie) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:16:34 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177515 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" wrote: > Katie: > "A rift began to grow between Slytherin and the others. Slytherin wanted to be more *selective* about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all- magic families...Slytherin, according to the legend, sealed the Chamber of Secrets so that none would be able to open it until his own true heir arrived at the school. The heir alone would be able to unseal the Chamber of Secrets, unleash the horror within, and use it to purge the school of all who were unworthy to study magic." > > lizzyben: > > And at the end of DH, the same situation happens, in the reverse. > the Chosen One re-enters the school, the Chamber of Secrets is re- > opened, and the school is purged of all who were unworthy to study > magic (the Slytherins). YAY! Ethnic cleansing! > > Katie: > > I was surprised to find such strong language and history against > > Slytherin House...I hadn't really noticed it before. I know that > > sounds ridiculous, but in my own mind, there was an ambiguity > about Slytherin House that allowed me to see these events in a more > > sympathetic light. Now, I see that any ambiguity was really only > in my own mind, and JKR meant for the Slytherins to be evil from day one. > I also have to reiterate that I find it strange for Slytherin House to even be a part of the school at all, seeing them in the light of DH and the new slant I have on them. Why not get rid of the House after Slytherin departed? > > lizzyben: > > Exactly, they have no right to exist. The House should be purged > from the school because they are unworthy to become wizards. They > have "bad blood", which makes them evil since birth, and they are > inferior to the superior worthy Houses. Howarts should be more > *selective* in who it allows to enter - the unworthy should be > excluded. All this is bad enough, but then DH invokes the heavy Nazi imagery to make it even worse. It's downright evil. ***Katie again: I don't really agree with this part. If the Slytherins are intended to be the evil, bad guys (which I have to say, JKR didn't do very well, since we all felt they had the possibility for change, at least before DH), which I definitely believe they are...well, then don't they deserve to be expunged from the school where the good guys are? I mean, do we talk about being prejudiced against Nazis or the KKK? NO. Because Nazis and the KKK are evil groups that espouse racial hierarchy and genocide. They're bad, nasty people, and so of course normal, decent people hate them. There's nothing wrong with wanting bad, evil people out of your school. My problem, plotwise, is WHY were the Slytherins still there, if it was so evident from the beginning that they were racist bad guys? Doesn't make sense. Since JKR obviously intended the Slytherins to represent racial groups like the KKK and the Nazis (I am including modern Nazi groups here, too, not just the historical political construct), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with feeling hate towards them. They're espousing hate and racism, and so of course, decent people would find them despicible. That's not "prejudice" on the part of the decent people...is it "prejudice" to hate Nazis? I don't think so. The problem, as I see it, is that JKR, as storyteller and a writer, left way too much room for ambiguity. While it is obvious, with a completed canon, that the Slytherins were basically unredeemable, that was not at all obvious before DH. So, in this, I agree with those people that have been saying that DH is a huge departure...at least for US. I don't think it was for JKR. She never saw the ambiguity in the Slytherin House that we all saw - she was just unable to express concretely her true vision of them. Is that a moral weakness, or a writing weakness? I think it's a writing weakness. I don't see that her morality suffered in DH. I see that her editors were terrified to tell her that there were loose ends and mistakes, and I see that many of her weaknesses as a writer were much more glaring. However, I do not see that the ethical and moral points of the story failed. I still see the main themes as choice and love, both of which had a lot to do with Harry's ending and the ending of Slytherin House, as well. The Slytherins *chose* to be on the opposite side from the rest of the school, to stand with the DE's and LV...now, we can argue *why* they chose to do that (JKR would probably say it's because they're evil through and through), but the choice was there. DH did not ruin the series for me...but I do believe it is the most seriously flawed of the series and I do believe that her editors did an incredibly poor job of reining her in and making sure all the pieces fit together properly. And I do believe that it highlights some of JKR's most serious writing weaknesses, one of them being hints and plots that go nowhere - and Slytherin's ability to become good was something I felt was hinted at through 6 books and then completely fell apart in DH. I do wish that had been different. But since I can now see what JKR's intent was - I definitely do not feel unjustified in disliking the Slytherins as a group. They're Nazis. They're the KKK. And while *we*, as readers, saw room for growth and change in them, JKR definitely never did. Unfortunately, because of her sometimes weak writing, that wasn't obvious until now. KATIE From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 18:43:41 2007 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:43:41 -0000 Subject: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177516 > Alla: > > And DH ends with suggestion that Harry scar was not hurting him for > niteeen years. All was well. Not all was well with Harry and his > family, but all was well. I think all was well with the world is a > reasonable intepretation too. > > Nothing about new evil lord coming or anything like that. All was > well. Montavilla47: This is totally digressive, so please feel free to ignore it. But... That line about Harry's scar not hurting cracks me up, because all the scar really is is a Voldemort-specific sneakoscope. All he knows is that *Voldemort* is still dead (like General Francisco Franco). It doesn't let Harry know about any *other* Dark Lords brewing up evil plans. I mean, for all he knows, the next Dark Lord is standing next to him on the railroad platform. Like Hermione. Now *there's* a sequal. From gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 18:16:45 2007 From: gary_braithwaite at yahoo.com (gary_braithwaite) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 18:16:45 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177517 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > I'm curious. Did those of you who hated the last book find *anything* > at all to like or admire about it? Humor? Suspense? Terror? Grief? > Remorse? A real villain instead of a cardboard one? A flawed mentor > instead of a perfect one? Harry's ability to see certain characters > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally? Anything at > all? Forgive the cliche, but I found the book an emotional roller > coaster ride, full of surprises, moving from laughter or excitement to > almost unbearable grief and back again (and occasional moments killed him > Gary B. - Carol, DH is a book that I am deeply ambivalent about especially after I had time for a second reading. Unlike its predecessors, it does not improve with re-readings. Its strong points are brilliantly written scenes, scattered throughout, such as ch 16 with Harry and Hermione at the end together arms around each other listening to the xmas music in the cemetery; the aftermath of Dobby's death and Harry's decision to bury him without using magic; and the walk through the woods to met LV and his presumed death. A nice touch with his cousin after so much has gone between them. An affecting backstory for Snape (who gets his final release by literally giving away his painful memories)as well as for Dumbledore. A certain ruthlessness with the sudden dispatching of Hedwig, Moody, Dobby, Snape, Fred, etc. which gave the book an atmosphere of unpredictability. A recognition that Harry must die for him to succeed (well, almost die). I cannot wait for her to move outside of the confines of "children's literature" to see where she might go as a writer based on this evidence. Where the book has short comings is a basic story line that has gone off track -- these poor kids wandering about for chapter after chapter are supposed to be the hope against LV and his allies? Where is the support mechanism? Where are the adults? Kingsley and any other survivors of the OofPhoenix? Where is Dumbledore's plan? Snape? So much depends on bizarre accident -- a major instance, Harry happened to be at the scene to witness Snape's death where he gains the information necessary for his walk. Oh, the seemingly worthless inheritance -- if Dumbledore was worried about Harry's mind-link to LV, why couldn't he just share information with Hermione to feed Harry as needed. If so worried, why did he take Harry with him after the Horclux in HBP? Plus the convoluted set of events/situations that allow Harry to survive his two confrontations with LV and generate much discussions on the internet (as the cliche goes -- have your cake and eat it, perhaps). Ch16 is followed with the strangely written ch 17 where Hermione breaks Harry's wand? Sorry that writing is a little too... As the clever creator of this universe, Rowling is entitled to finish her story in her own way. However, there is an in-your-face quality to the epilogue which seems to express her feelings about fan fiction (actually she is right -- 99.9% of it is bizarre if not ... well, I am lost for the precise word here) as well as other of her readers. Gary B. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Fri Sep 28 19:18:36 2007 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:18:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Changes I would make. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177518 In a message dated 9/27/2007 2:48:28 P.M. Central Daylight Time, bboyminn at yahoo.com writes: bboyminn: Shaun Hately did an astological analysis of the particular scene based on three sets of coordinates I gave him for likely locations of Hogwarts. I think the result was that while it was very difficult, it was not totally impossible for the book to be correct. What locations did he use? I've been trying to duplicate the Venus/Orion sighting with my Starry Night program. I have managed to have them in fairly close proximity during the day hours (4:44 pm @ 58N 4W) but haven't had any success in the middle of the night. Melissa ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 19:31:34 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:31:34 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177519 lizzyben wrote: > Harry sacrifices & "accepts" death, but yet escapes death. He takes the Cloak, which allows the wearer to hide from death. Carol responds: I can't argue with your emotional response to DH, nor am I trying to change it, which would be futile. But I do think you're taking certain assumptions for granted--Dumbledore as "God," for example ("So Harry is a Christ-figure who ignores a suffering child on his God's orders") without giving any supporting evidence or considering the evidence to the contrary. I agree that Harry is a Christ figure, but that does not make him Christ (as I've explained in other posts). But it would be strange indeed for the God figure, if there were one, to weep and beg forgiveness of the Christ figure (DH Am. ed. 713) or to state that the Christ figure is a "better man," as DD does (713). DD admits his fallibility and weakness: I was such a fool, Harry. After all those years I had learned nothing. I was unworthy to unite the Deathly Hallows" (720)--"unworthy to be "the Master of Death." Very unlike the Christian God, who is omniscient and omnipotent. Wise DD may be, but he's human, capable of sin and error, and his plans can and do go wrong. Regarding the Invisibility Cloak, I think you may be confusing the properties attributed to the cloak in the fairytale of the Three Brothers with the properties of the Invisibility Cloak created by Harry's ancestor Ignotus Peverell. (The Peverell brothers did not, as DD points out, really meet Death on a bridge: "The story of [the wand, stone and cloak] being Death's own Hallows seems to me the sort of legend that might spring up around such creations," 714.) It would be, as someone on this list pointed out, extremely difficult for Ignotus to marry and have children if he had hidden from death wearing an Invisibility Cloak until he was ready to die. Nor can anyone really hide from death in the HP books any more than they can in RL. As Harry notes, the IC would not have protected James, its rightful owner (or Lily if she were also under it), from Voldemort's Killing Curse (715). 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. Harry sacrifices himself and escapes death, true, but that escape has nothing to do with the Invisibility Cloak, which he has tucked under his robes with his (Draco's) wand so that he won't be tempted to use it. He escapes death because he shares a drop of his mother's blood with Voldemort, thanks to Voldie's hubris and folly, and he can't die while Voldemort lives. Once Voldemort's Horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort becomes mortal, killed by his own deflected Killing Curse, which relates to the Elder Wand (as far as I can determine), not to the Invisibility Cloak or to the (deliberately relinquished) Resurrection Stone. And once LV is dead, the blood protection that Lily gave Harry, which operated against Voldemort (including, I think, Voldemort's henchmen acting on his orders) but not against death in other forms ceases to exist. Harry, who has sacrificed himself, has the choice of actually dying ("going on") or returning to the world and finishing the task of destroying Voldemort. It's not clear what would have happened had he chosen to do so, but it is clear that even in "King's Cross," Harry is not immortal, nor can he "hide from death," as you state. Carol, now wondering whether Harry would have gone to King's Cross if he had kept the stone From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 20:28:27 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:28:27 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177520 > Carol responds: > > I can't argue with your emotional response to DH, nor am I trying to > change it, which would be futile. But I do think you're taking certain > assumptions for granted--Dumbledore as "God," for example without giving any supporting evidence or considering the > evidence to the contrary. I agree that Harry is a Christ figure, but > that does not make him Christ (as I've explained in other posts). lizzyben: Regarding DD as God-figure: JKR has called him God-like. I don't think he's God. But he serves as a metaphor for God. In DH, Harry loses his faith in God, wanders in the wilderness without guidance, and feels that the signs his God has left him are useless. He wonders if God ever loved him at all. After Harry's crisis of faith, he eventually chooses to submit to God's will & show obedience to God's plan, sacrificing his life for the good of the world. As a reward, he receives God's love & approval; and returns to earth as a Christ-figure. In that sense, it works well as a Christian allegory. In fact, that's the only way it works. Because if DD is just a manipulative, ruthless old man, it is sheer lunacy for Harry to obediently trot off to death on his say-so. It's creepy for his family to cheer him on to his martydom. It was wrong for Harry & Snape to have trusted him. If DD is just a flawed person that uses his followers, he starts to seem more like a cult leader telling Harry to drink the Kool-Aid; or a terrorist leader telling the young recruit to martyr himself for his political cause. In that case, Harry's willing, unthinking submission to authority is not an inspiring tale of faith, but a disturbing example of his unthinking obedience to a brainwashing leader. Either DD is God, or it's a tragedy. Either this book is "Pilgrim's Progress", or it's "1984". I think it's a little of both. Carol: > Regarding the Invisibility Cloak, I think you may be confusing the > properties attributed to the cloak in the fairytale of the Three > Brothers with the properties of the Invisibility Cloak created by > Harry's ancestor Ignotus Peverell. lizzyben: I'm not confusing the properties of the cloak. JKR creates a fable in which the third brother makes the "right" choice, a cloak that allows him to hide from death. At the end, Harry again makes the "right" choice, giving up power & choosing invisibility. That JKR says that "hiding from death" is a good thing, while also saying that "fearing death" is a bad thing, is another example of the metaphorical confusion of the novel. Carol: > 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, lizzyben: And can anyone tell me what being the "master of death" actually means? What's the title get you? Carol: Once Voldemort's Horcruxes are destroyed, > Voldemort becomes mortal, killed by his own deflected Killing Curse, > which relates to the Elder Wand (as far as I can determine), not to > the Invisibility Cloak or to the (deliberately relinquished) > Resurrection Stone. And once LV is dead, the blood protection that > Lily gave Harry, which operated against Voldemort (including, I think, > Voldemort's henchmen acting on his orders) but not against death in > other forms ceases to exist. lizzyben: Yes, the "Power the Dark Lord knows not" came down to a super- powerful Wand. Harry gained the allegiance of an amoral power, and that power, gained by force, allowed him to take out LV. The whole "love" speculation was just silliness. Harry never entered the locked room. He never had to learn how to love someone to beat LV. He didn't have to show compassion to beat LV. He just needed force. The philosophy of the Elder Wand is: "There is no good & evil, there is only power & those to weak to seek it." And that's the power that gave Harry victory in the end. The Elder Wand was the only Hallow that really mattered - while the "good" Hallows were useless. So the "bad" Hallow, the one he shouldn't use, was the one that helped Harry to achieve victory. Mixed messages much. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Sep 28 21:01:10 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:01:10 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177521 > lizzyben: > > Oh, that scene was powerful, no doubt. It deeply affected me as well, > & the imagery was haunting. But was it cathartic, in the sense of > offering a release of emotion & pain, and a sense of hope & healing? > No way. If anything, it was the total opposite - there is no hope, > there is no healing for LV, there is only eternal agony & pain. It's > the total opposite of an emotional catharsis. Pippin: But it's always that way for the characters of tragedy. They don't escape. The consolation is that we're not them. It's too late for them, not us. *We* don't have to be unaware of the agony of the neglected child until he's grown and leaving packages with ticking metal hearts under benches at the train station. Lizzyben: > How does that vision fit in with "don't pity the dead"? Shouldn't we > pity that damned soul? Pippin: Pitying things we can't help is all about us, not them. JKR wants us to pity children *before* they become so damaged that no one can help them. http://www.chlg.org/ Lizzyben: Shouldn't we pity Moaning Myrtle, who never > finds peace or consolation? Or the Bloody Baron, Nick & the other > ghosts wandering about in a restless state? Don't all these "unhappy" > souls contradict the happy, smiling Sirius' assurances that death is > easy & peaceful? Pippin: They're not souls at all. A ghost, according to Snape, is the imprint of a "departed soul." That is why Nick can't tell Harry anything about death. He is neither here nor there, only a "pale imitation of life" that he chose to create before his soul departed. > lizzyben: > > That's my understanding as well, but I don't believe that LV ever had > a choice - his soul was born in that prison & then punished for > eternity. He was predestined for damnation. It's a bleak, bleak vision. Pippin: How can he have been born in that prison? What's imprisoning Voldemort is his choice to divide his soul with murder, and then to make the division irreparable by constructing horcruxes. We get right inside Voldemort's mind to see that he's not an instinctive killer, unlike the basilisk. He doesn't kill because of an uncontrollable hunger or a voice in his head. He does it because it feels good. And making horcruxes can hardly be an inborn trait. If Jo meant to indicate that Voldemort was born in his prison, why not make him a natural killer like the basilisk, and have that alone enough to keep his soul from repair? I'm not sure how you base your assumptions about Jo's beliefs. I am really uncomfortable with making assumptions about someone's beliefs based on their denomination. I am an official of my synagogue, and I can tell you I've never met anyone who wanted to join because they've reviewed the adopted resolutions of the Union for Reformed Judaism and want to express their agreement. As far as I know, we haven't even got primary source information for what denomination JKR actually belongs to, much less what attracted her to join it. It could be she liked the choir > lizzyben: > > Here I will always disagree. And that's where I start to really wonder > what kind of message JKR is pushing. Cause it's truly one of the most > disturbing scenes I've ever read in terms of its implied message about > obedience to authority & the suppression of compassion. If you as a > reader could feel pity, compassion & sorrow for LV's state, why > couldn't Harry or Dumbledore? Pippin: They could feel compassion. That's why Harry wants to help, why Dumbledore sorrows for Severus and for his sister and for Harry. But no compassion can help Voldemort. They are in a place where there are no more lies, no deceits, at least that's what I think all the whiteness and light symbolizes. Harry is satisfied with what Dumbledore tells him, and for the first time in his life, he isn't tempted to lie to DD himself. He's not submitting to corrupt authority. He's submitting to the truth, either the truth as the more advanced soul of Dumbledore sees it, or the truth as perceived by what Harry projects as the best and wisest part of himself. If deceit is impossible, then they can't win Voldemort's confidence by pretending to sympathize with him. He hurts at the expression of honest love. That his skin is gone suggests that he has rejected even the comfort of touch. What comfort there is for him seems to lie in being forgotten. You see the flayed child as something Voldemort becomes after he dies. If so that would be a good reason to fear death. But I see it as what Voldemort already was, if we could have perceived his true self. If he returned to the living world and continued to live as he had been, he would only be putting himself into a worse state. When the characters say dying is easy, surely they're referring to the moment of transition between life and death, and not to the agony that might be involved in getting a healthy person to the point of death. Harry already knows that if Voldemort decides to kill him slowly, it's going to hurt. He's been through that. That's not what he's asking Sirius, who fell through the veil and died almost instantly. Pippin From cottell at dublin.ie Fri Sep 28 22:04:53 2007 From: cottell at dublin.ie (muscatel1988) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:04:53 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177522 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > How can he have been born in that prison? What's imprisoning > Voldemort is his choice to divide his soul with murder, and then > to make the division irreparable by constructing horcruxes. > > We get right inside Voldemort's mind to see that he's not an > instinctive killer, unlike the basilisk. He doesn't kill because of > an uncontrollable hunger or a voice in his head. He does it > because it feels good. Mus responds (for hirself and not, obviously, for lizzyben04): Most of HBP was devoted to Riddle's backstory. What we were shown there (and shown, not told) was that he was the product of the ill- conceived, disastrous love for a callous Muggle on the part of a witch who was the descendent of Slytherin and herself brought up in horribly abusive circumstances. When he was orphaned (because unlike the saintly Lily, Merope, far from loving him enough to die for him, couldn't bring herself to stay alive for him), having been born in the orphanage, he was a strange child, who hardly ever cried, who killed other kids' rabbits, who terrified the other children and subjected two of them to unspeakable and unspoken horrors in the cave - and we're told this by the woman who runs the place, and who's clearly an alcoholic. " 'I don't think many people will be sorry to see the back of him.'" [HBP, UK hb: 251] Riddle is presented to us as either bred-in-the-bone evil or irredeemably damaged before he even gets to Hogwarts, the perfect storm of dreadful nature and awful nurture. There is nothing in canon to indicate at what point he *chose* to take the dark path. He was well launched on it as a tiny child (and if that touch about the rabbit wasn't in there because it's well known that psychopathic/sociopathic killers often start out on pets, I'll eat the Sorting Hat). He didn't get bad when he decided to change his name, nor when he started to make horcruxes. Yes, killing makes him feel good. But that by itself is just a fact. What led him to derive pleasure from it? Why, in short, did JKR make the decision to give him such a terribly stereotypical backstory? Why did she take such pains to give us a child who *was* born in a prison (and literally, born in an orphanage)? It's not really an interesting backstory at all, for this reader. It would have been much more interesting if he'd been born into a family like Harry's - one that is loving and kind, where he was wanted - and then gone bad (although that would have been a radically different story). But he wasn't - the poor kid never had a choice, and ends as he began, "a small, naked child, curled on the ground, its skin raw and rough, flayed-looking, [...] shuddering under a seat where it had been left, unwanted, stuffed out of sight, struggling for breath." [DH, UK pb:566] I wish that I could see where he chose. I really don't think it's there. Mus, whoe heart breaks for Merope. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 22:11:33 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:11:33 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177523 > lizzyben: > In fact, that's the only way it works. Because if DD is just a > manipulative, ruthless old man, it is sheer lunacy for Harry to > obediently trot off to death on his say-so. zgirnius: Whether Dumbledore is a wise, well-intentioned, but flawed old man, a sinister puppetmaster weaving his evil designs to ensnare his trusting followers, or God Almighty is irrelevant, as I see it. His plan for Harry, as revealed to Harry by the memories Snape gave him, will achieve its goal if Harry carries it out. If Harry is killed by Voldemort and Nagini dies, then Voldemort will once again be mortal. Harry does not carry out the plan because it is Dumbledore's, he carries it out because it is his wish to make Voldemort mortal once again, so that those he leaves behind will have a chance to finally defeat him. We know Harry believes this of the plan, and we know he wants it to happen, because the book is written from his point of view, and the book tells us he thinks these things. So no, he is not drinking Kool-Aid. At worst, he is accepting the advice of an evil man on the way to achieve this (good) end. Further, I always thought it was telling that Harry did not call Dumbledore back with the Resurrection Stone. In my opinion, he called back the dead that loved him, to receive their support.And this is why I believe Dumbledore was not there - Harry did not believe he was loved by Dumbledore. The later revelations in King's Cross, that Dumbledore in fact designed the plan in the way he thought maximized Harry's chance of surviving that confrontation, are the reason Harry still wants to see the portrait at the end. He realizes that Dumbledore's intention was to act in his bets interest, and Dumbledore did love him, as I read the bok anyway. Nor was Snape drinking Kool-Aid in DH. Arguably Dumbledore deceived him and lied to him for fifteen years, but Dumbledore laid bare his own deception to Snape after their argument in the Forest in HBP. While we don't have canon of Snape's thought process, my own opinion is that it is the same as Harry's - that he went along with the plan despite his anger at the way he had been deceived, and his horror at the cost. Because, again, Snape decided that he was in agreement with the goals of the plan, and saw that the plan would achieve it. Possibly also because he realized that nothing Dumbledore had 'made' (used in quites, because we see quite clearly Snape was not bound to do anything) him do was something he now regretted. > lizzyben: > I'm not confusing the properties of the cloak. JKR creates a fable > in which the third brother makes the "right" choice, a cloak that > allows him to hide from death. At the end, Harry again makes > the "right" choice, giving up power & choosing invisibility. zgirnius: Harry's choice of 'invisibility' (that is, to live a normal life) is not a choice to avoid death. The more directly analogous action of Harry to that of the youngest brother, in my view, is his walk to the Forest wearing the Cloak, and his removal of it before he faces Voldemort. This death, he believes, is his destiny owing to Voldemort's actions sixteen years before, which left Harry wioth that soul bit. So like the brother, he is meeting death at his proper time. > lizzyben: > And can anyone tell me what being the "master of death" actually > means? What's the title get you? zgirnius: Absolutely nothing, wouldn't stop a pile of bricks from squashing you flat the next time you walk down a sidewalk. It denotes a person who is proven to have the character to avoid the temptations of the Hallows, I think. Harry had the wand but does not lust for its power, he had the Stone but does not force his assorted beloved deceased to follow him around for the rest of his life, and has the Cloak, but was willing to accept his own death to save his friends. Dumbledore and Grindelwald as young men thought it would make them some sort of uber-wizards with super-powers, I presume. I don't believe that the text is saying they were right. > lizzyben: > Yes, the "Power the Dark Lord knows not" came down to a super- > powerful Wand. Harry gained the allegiance of an amoral power, and > that power, gained by force, allowed him to take out LV. The > whole "love" speculation was just silliness. Harry never entered the > locked room. He never had to learn how to love someone to beat LV. zgirnius: Without his love for his friends and his dear departed ones, Harry would not have had the courage for the *first* confrontation. So yeas, he did need to love for that. It was not something he needed to learn in DH, however, since Harry already loved bunches of people and creatures, living and dead, before the book ever started. Love played a role not as the power Harry has, but the power Voldemort neither has nor understands, in the second confrontation. He believed Narcissa when she said Harry was dead, because he underestimated what she would do to getto Draco. He was convinced he was the wand's master, because he had killed Snape. (Which would have been incorrect even iof Draco had not interfered, because Voldemort was also totally clueless about Snape's love and loyalties). To me, love was all over the final chapters, including the final confrontation. >lizzyben: > The Elder Wand was the only Hallow > that really mattered - while the "good" Hallows were > useless. So the "bad" Hallow, the one he shouldn't use, was the one > that helped Harry to achieve victory. Mixed messages much. zgirnius: Mixed messages?! Who used the "bad" Hallow and what happened to that person? Harry used Draco's old wand and Expelliarmus. After carefully elucidating for Voldemort exactly what he was failing to understand. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Sep 28 23:34:09 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:34:09 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177524 Magpie wrote: > Well, yes. I'm sure the person is advancing it as an interpretation that works. I'm strictly talking about my way of reading the book and how many interpretations just don't ring true for me at all except as something written by the reader that isn't backed up in the text but grafted onto it. > I mean, clearly some of the things that to me are nice but huge stretches work for you, but that still doesn't make them any more believable to me, or sound like JKR's style of writing, so they don't help me. > > It'd be great if I thought this stuff was convincing rather than just eloquent, because it would put some great depth in the book. I just don't find the explanations that it is there convincing. > Carol responds: But the same thing works in reverse, doesn't it? Remarks along the lines of "I'm disappointed" and "the book doesn't live up to its promise" are subjective reflections of an individual reader's disappointment, not objective analyses of the text. (Value judgments of any kind, even those based on standardized criteria, are by their very nature subjective.) You say that extrapolations from the text aren't convincing, but all these generalizations about how bad the book is aren't convincing, either. How about pointing out *specific^ flaws and *showing* that they're flaws, or rather, why you interpret them as flaws? (I do "get" the problem with the Unforgiveable Curses, for example, and the apparent contradiction between their depiction in GoF and their use in DH, and I agree that the apparent inconsistency within JKR's moral universe can legitimately be interpreted as a flaw. But that's one specific flaw, and it does not apply to the book as a whole, only to certain scenes.) You talk providing about canon support, but I don't see it in the recent spate of posts from three or four disappointed readers. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see are charges that the book is a Calvinist (or antinomian) tract, that Slytherin is still the House of the "damned" (or, at least, the enemy of the other Houses--I would argue that since the Slytherins didn't fight in the battle, whatever Draco and his cronies were doing partially excepted, but sat out the battle, so they were neutral rather than enemies), and that the House unity "promised" by the Sorting Hat (which actually expressed an appeal for unity rather than a promise) was violated. I have yet to see evidence from the books other than "the Sorting Hat's new Song" in OoP that House unity would be an important motif and I don't understand the emphasis being placed on it, as if the presence or absence of House unity determines whether the book is good or bad. (We've talked about writing style, but what about plot development? Suspense? Characterization? Humor? Believability? *Other* themes? What do the characters' choices reveal about them, for example?) I understand that some readers find the book disappointing based on the violation of their expectations, which, in turn, were based on their interpretation of previous books, as if some single element (House unity or Draco's character arc) were the whole book. I don't find such arguments convincing for the same reason you don't find defenses of DH convincing--many of the posts attacking the book appear to be subjective reactions with very little canon support and a lot of question-begging (taking the point to be proven for granted and using an argument to support itself). They may not be extrapolating on the text, but they're not examining it, either. The House unity thing seems to me like one minor failing, if it's a failing at all. Why judge the whole book on the basis of one (perceived) flaw? As Alla pointed out, the expectation of House unity seems to be based solely on "The Sorting Hat's New Song" in OoP. Does it have any other basis in canon, or was that expectation solely the hope of fans who didn't like JKR's depiction of Slytherin and the Sorting system in general, a false hope that she would see what those readers considered to be the light? If so, it's unrealistic to expect her to deal with that motif at all (except in the Dark parody of House unity proposed by Voldemort). It would help, BTW, if you quoted one of those "eloquent" interpretations that doesn't ring true for you and then used canon and logic to show why you find it unconvincing. Otherwise, all we have is your opinion that they're extrapolating on canon rather than offering an interpretation you don't agree with. Magpie: > If everything's just an interpretation than Harry can be said to be going to Mars at the end. Anything can happen between the lines. We argue to try to show that one interpretation works more than another: "Clearly this scene shows that Hermione and Harry were in love with each other, not Ron and Ginny respectively!" or "Clearly Harry's line to Albus means that they're on the way to House Unity!" Carol responds: I agree. We need to look at particular scenes to see why one interpretation works better than another (or why both are valid since a definitive interpretation is probably impossible). So let's look at the Albus Severus scene (since I think it's a key to the whole Snape/Slytherin plot arc). *Why* doesn't Harry's line to Albus Severus show that they're on the way to House unity, in your view, and what *does* it show? Why is that bit of dialogue included in the epilogue at all if "then Slytherin House will have gained an excellent student, won't it? It doesn't matter to us" (DH Am. ed. 758) is not an improvement over "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?" (671)? Why isn't having Severus Snape, "probably the bravest man I ever knew," as the representative Slytherin a huge improvement over Slytherin as the House of Voldemort and the one from which most of the Death Eaters came? It's nineteen years later, and, IMO, we can clearly see a change in attitudes exemplified by Harry's generation. Draco's nod to Harry suggests that he, too, is not ruling out the possibility or desirability of a friendship between little Scorpius and Harry's or Ron's children. The misty, dreamlike atmosphere of the scene suggests an amorphous future, open to change, without the rigid prejudices of the previous generations. Maybe they will become friends, maybe they won't. But they probably won't become enemies solely because of their choice of Houses like James and Severus two generations back. Harry is at least attempting to open Albus Severus's mind, a huge change from Hagrid's ingrained prejudice against Slytherin transferring itself to Harry. Maybe you would have preferred to see Draco and Harry and their sons on better terms, but, IMO, that would be unrealistic. Things aren't perfect, but surely they're better than they were. Magpie: It wasn't like Harry's "He would never forgive Snape!" (Harry did change how he felt about those people, just imo in an incredibly lame and undramatic way.) Carol responds: "Lame and undramatic" sounds subjective to me, not the sort of thing that can be proved or disproved through canon. You were expecting something different, maybe a scene like Mrs. Weasley's defeat of Bellatrix for Snape? I thought that Snape's death scene was more dramatic than any we've seen so far, especially that last startling bit of magic, a few exchanged words, and the look into each other's eyes, and it leads to something important--a complete rethinking of Snape *and* the "truth" about Harry's confrontation with Voldemort, which must not be a gladiator going into the arena to fight but a willing sacrifice. "Lame and undramatic?" Evidently the scene failed to have the intended emotional impact on you (as a reader who already knew that Snape was DDM and expected something beyond love for Lily as his primary motivation). I had the same expectation but was nevertheless profoundly moved to a variety of strong emotions by the scene, which is of the utmost importance both in terms of the defeat of Voldemort and of Harry's forgiveness of Snape (and Snape's remorse and redemption). I would call it powerful and profound and almost unbearably moving. And of course I know perfectly well that that's my own reaction and not an objective assessment of the scene as a piece of writing. I would say, however, that if the majority of readers feel the emotions that the author intended them to feel (horror and revulsion at Bathilda!Nagini, shock and horror at Snape's death, grief and pity at Dobby's death), then the scene is effectively written. To return to Albus Severus, whose very name gave me a surge of immense satisfaction and affection for Harry, JKR chose to add that moment as a symbolic indication of Harry's forgiveness of and admiration for Snape, a complete turnaround from "He would never forgive Snape. Never!" It may not have worked for you, but it meant a great deal to me. Thank you, Harry. Thank you, JKR. Magpie: > JKR isn't a bad writer because she didn't write about House Unity. Carol: True. Magpie: She could have written something else that was just as compelling or more so. I thought the book was disappointing on its own. I didn't like what she did write, so the ghost of the book that might have been is still hanging around. > Carol: But don't you see how subjective this judgment is? House unity is compelling to you but not necessarily to all readers in and of itself. And to say that she "could have written something . . . just as compelling" is also subjective, considering that some of us found, say, Harry's visit to his parents' grave or Ron's destruction of the locket Horcrux or Snape's memories *very* compelling (and the Bathilda!Nagini scene in a hair-raising, horrible sort of way). What's compelling to you is not necessarily compelling to another reader and vice versa. Just out of curiosity, what "compelling" scenes or themes (aside from House unity and a thoroughly reformed Draco) do you think should have been included in "the book that might have been"? (Some scenes were necessarily excluded by HRH's absence from Hogwarts and isolation from the WW in general. I'd have liked more of Hogwarts, especially Snape's efforts to protect the students, but that would have spoiled the plot.) And how is their absence a flaw in the book as opposed to a violation of your expectations? How could they have been brought in without hopelessly clogging and slowing down an already complicated plot? Magpie: > Stories raise expectations--that's part of what they do. I expected Harry would kill Voldemort, that evil would be vanquished, that Hermione would be brainy and Ron would be snarky and Luna would be vague. That we'd find out what side Snape was on and the Horcruxes would get destroyed. Those are all things we should have been expecting. Carol: Exactly. And all of those expectations were met. (A little too much in Hermione's case, IMO. How is it that she knows protective spells that adults like Ted Tonks and Dirk Cresswell don't know? Oh, well. Can't have everything, and our heroes have to survive. ) Side note: *Is* Ron "snarky"? I thought our stand-in snarky character was Phineas Nigellus. How about alternately funny and irritable, taking out his self-doubts and jealousy and frustration on his friends? (A normal teenage boy, IOW. I guess I don't need to repeat how much I liked the symbolic destruction of his doubts and fears in the locket Horcrux scene.) > Magpie: > If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and the thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. Carol: How is one reader's interest in a "thing" that the author chose not to focus on a "misstep"? It simply means that the reader would have had a different focus, a different plot, a different story. It doesn't mean that JKR's chosen path is flawed, just that JKR is focused on different elements of her own story than the reader is. As I said, the isolation of the three main characters (temporarily reduced to two in mid-book) necessitates that we see less of other characters and their related subplots, themes, and motifs than we do in earlier books. Setting aside the first chapter, in which we see both Snape and Draco from the outside and Harry not at all, JKR gives us as much as she can of Draco by having the kidnapping by Snatchers occur during Easter vacation and having him enter the RoR; she gives us glimpses of Snape through a newspaper article and an overheard conversation and Phineas Nigellus (also the doe Patronus) before Harry himself encounters him, misunderstandings and hatred still intact. Neville becomes prominent near the end, and we can infer the changes in his character through the changes in his attitude and behavior. If I were judging the book by what I would have written as opposed to what JKR actually wrote, I might call the depiction of McGonagall a "misstep." I didn't like it, or her (McG as she appears in DH). But much as I'd love to argue that her actions are OOC, I just have to shrug and say, "Yes, McG would have done that." Too bad she didn't know the truth about Snape and too bad she extended her prejudices to the other Slytherins based on Pansy's foolish panic and too bad she called the Crucio gallant, but I can't realistically say that those actions are inconsistent with the depiction of her in earlier books. I can't call her depiction a flaw in the book, only a disappointment from my perspective. (Too bad Snape didn't get a chance to save her life and show *her.* Humpf. ) Magpie: What I said above > was just that I accept that JKR just didn't actually want to write about House Unity. So when people who claim the book worked really well claim that House Unity actually did happen brilliantly, it seems like they feel like it ought to have happened for the series to conclude. Carol: I don't know of a single person who claims that "House unity actually did happen brilliantly." What we've said is that Slytherin is no longer the House of budding Death Eaters and the epilogue shows or at least implies the potential for House unity in the future, for an altered Slytherin with real heroes to look up to and emulate. Assuming that Slughorn will remain in charge for awhile, it might have a chance to focus on genial ambition rather than sinister tendencies toward the Dark Arts (never convincingly demonstrated n the books, IMO) and the pure-blood supremacy ethic, whose unhealthy implications have been pretty thoroughly demonstrated in DH. Note "might," not "will." The door is open for change, especially since the hat that selects the future Slytherins has its own agenda, the House unity that some readers find so important (in contrast to JKR, who privileges Harry's struggles and his search for "truth" over what she evidently regards as secondary and tertiary themes, motifs, and conflicts). Magpie: I think she didn't write it, period. She didn't seem to think it was necessary. Harry was the defender of what came before. It was Voldemort who had the plan for big change. Carol: I'm not sure what you mean here. Harry's attitude toward Slytherin is, if not a 180-degree turn away from his previous view, at least 90 degrees from it (markedly different from what we see in SS/PS, as I've shown above). I don't think Harry cares about House unity per se, but at least he's working toward more amicable relations between the two Houses that most concern him, as shown by his words to Albus Severus. How that makes him a "defender of what came before" escapes me. As for Voldie, he's not advocating House unity. He's advocating House abolition, turning Hogwarts into a second Durmstrang with the whole school wearing Slytherin's colors (and representing, no doubt, the worst side of Slytherin as symbolized by the Carrows, not the best side as represented by snape, Regulus, and possibly Slughorn). > Magpie: > As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good stuff that's a criticism of her as a writer. Carol: No, because what "somebody thinks" is "the good stuff" is subjective. 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 (but not in this post). In focusing on Harry, and secondarily, on Ron and Hermione, and on the Horcruxes vs. Hallows conflict, JKR has to relegate certain story elements to the sidelines. Snape is there, lingering in the background, along with the mystery of the white doe (Snape again) and the mirror fragment and DD's backstory (which perhaps received too much page time, but that's my subjective judgment) and Godric's Hollow and Grindelwald--not to mention Snatchers and the plight of the Muggle-borns and the takeover of the Ministry by Death Eaters and Dobby and Kreacher/Regulus and all the elements that had to be fit into a chronological plotline (admittedly stretched out to fit roughly into the Hogwarts school year, ending in May rather than June this time, which perhaps gives the staff and students time to return to normal, bury the dead, and take their exams. Or maybe not.) Of course, the book isn't perfect. And I, for one, wish that the continuity editor had corrected small inconsistencies like the Statute of Secrecy being suddenly passed in 1689 rather than 1692 or skulls suddenly being a feature of the Slytherin common room when no such thing is described in CoS. Those errors are genuine flaws, but, fortunately, they're small ones. Now I do blame JKR for things like forgetting that Sirius Black didn't live at 12 GP when Lily wrote her letter, so its presence there is hard to account for (and should not be the reader's job). The date of the letter also seems off. (Similarly, I blame her for not checking CoS to see whether Draco actually had the Hand of Glory.) But those are small blemishes that only temporarily raise questions in some readers' minds and distract them from the story. Other readers won't notice them at all or at least won't be bothered by them. But I don't blame her for not presenting the Slytherins as some readers wanted to see them or for making love (as important to her as courage) the central motivation of both of her redeemed and courageous Slytherins (Snape and Regulus), with a more selfish form of love saving the Malfoys from DEism and themselves. And while we have a right to expect consistency (even if it is "the hobgoblin of small minds"), I think it's a mistake to impose our own expectations on a book and judge it as bad for failing to meet them when meeting *our* expectations was no part of JKR's intention. In fact, I'm not even sure that we can judge the book by how well it reflects *JKR's* intentions since it's so difficult to determine something so shifting and amorphous as an intention and so much of the writing process is unconscious, reflecting values and beliefs that the writer takes for granted. Planning and revision are conscious processes, but writing itself often is not, as anyone who's been "inspired" knows well. Magpie: But my problems with DH go far beyond "She didn't do House Unity or do something better with Draco Malfoy." > > I mean, when I'm criticizing the book I feel like I ought to talk about what's in the, not what's not in the book. Carol: Exactly. Why *aren't* we talking about "what's in the book"? Why *are* we talking about what isn't there? You say you want canon-based arguments. So do I. And that's hard to do when we're talking about what JKR "failed" to do. Why not talk about what she *did* do? Themes, symbols, motifs, characters, conflicts other than Gryffindor/Slytherin that *were* resolved? (And "better" is again a subjective term. I thought that Draco was handled realistically, in a natural extension of his indecisiveness at the end of HBP, as I've already discussed elsewhere.) Magpie: > My criticisms of Draco's storyline aren't just that he didn't do X that I imagined him doing, but that I thought he was all over the place with no purpose, he confused me and seemed pointless whenever he showed up and just petered out after a really good beginning in the first chapter. Carol: Okay, now I feel like we're getting somewhere: you're presenting a specific complaint as opposed to generalized accusations of "bad writing," along with specific charges against JKR that partially reflect your reaction (confusion) but mostly relate to the actual writing. It would help me to see your perspective by answering some questions and looking, as you said above, at "what's in the text." Why do you consider the first chapter "a really good beginning"? How is Draco "all over the place" (rather than consistently afraid and indecisive, which is how I see him, in contrast to Lucius, who seems willing to do anything to get his old position as Voldie's right-hand man back)? How does he "just peter out" when he's actively trying to prevent Crabbe from hexing Harry in the RoR? Is your confusion really the mark of bad writing (writing that readers in general find confusing) or does it result from her "failure" to provide a "better" extension of Draco's character arc? Carol, hoping to see the same thing Magpie does, analysis of what JKR did write as opposed to what she didn't write (only I'd rather focus on interpreting the meaning of the text rather than evaluating the quality of the writing, which is largely a subjective judgment) From starview316 at yahoo.ca Fri Sep 28 22:45:22 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:45:22 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177525 I realize this discussion has probably been beaten to death, but I did want to add my two cents... > >Pippin: > > > >Of course it was. But then why would it not matter that from that > >point things unfold quite differently? instead of reacting like a > >hunted animal, Draco responds politely, nor is this politeness > >treated as deceptive. > > >lealess: > They are adults now. Adults are more in control than children. I > interpret this scene to show that Draco recognizes his better, Harry, > and nothing more. Am I wrong? Probably. Amy: Different interpretations are fine, but we're shown throughout HP that adults (HP!Adults, anyway) are NOT more in control than children. Arthur and Lucius brawl in a bookstore in front of their children, Snape and Sirius bait each other whenever they get half a chance, even Molly Weasley has her moments of being very childish. If there *was* any serious, continued enmity between Draco and Ron (or Harry and Draco), I fully believe that we would have seen it. > >Lealess: > >> Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House > >> that were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more > >> persuasive? > > > >Pippin: > >Friendship. Bravery. > >Are those not the things that make a great wizard? > >A great human being? > >Are they somehow poisoned by association with Harry? > >Is there one kind of greatness for Gryffindors and another > >kind for Slytherins? > lealess: > I'd say Slytherins want to be recognized and valued for achievement. > I'd say they want power of one kind or another. They want to attain > their goals. If I were a Slytherin, that's what I would want to be > recognized for. I think Snape got all those things. I don't think > Harry explicitly or implicitly acknowledged them. > > What makes someone a great human being or wizard? Our views will > probably differ on this. As a Ravenclaw, I would say knowledge and > creativity. A Gryffindor will say friendship and bravery. I'd say > that either comes cheap, because they are not what I value. A > Gryffindor would find me incomprehensible. That's why I don't think > Harry understands Snape except through the filter of his own values, > which he imposes on Snape after death, allowing him to accept Snape > as a hero. Amy: I think that, in DH, the Snape-Harry storyline was less about Harry understanding Snape than it was about Harry seeing Snape as a good person. You mentioned that Harry never acknowledges the other things we see about Snape, like how he's a successful spy, how brilliant he is with Potions, etc, etc. Perhaps it's just that I see it differently. But I think Harry has already acknowledged these things about Snape: we've had six books of his doing this very thing, and it's just not as important in the seventh book because none of these things have helped Harry see Snape as anything other than a jerk. Which, granted, makes sense: you can't assume that someone is a good person just because they're brilliant at what they do. Snape taught Harry "Expelliarmus" (which he acknowledged in CoS: "Shouldn't have let Snape teach us that one."), which has become his signature spell. He's known that Snape was a spy since GoF, and actually did acknowledge how good Snape was at that in his final speech to Voldemort in DH. Harry spent the whole of HBP raving about how brilliant the Prince was, even if he didn't know who the Prince was. When the subject is broached after Snape reveals himself in HBP, all Harry says is "How do you think I feel about that now?" He doesn't renounce his claims of the Prince's brilliance, just his claims of the Prince not being the evil person Hermione kept telling Harry he was. And I'd find it hard to believe that Harry didn't see Snape as a powerful wizard by the end of HBP. Harry has long since acknowledged all these things about Snape; it hadn't made him see Snape any differently. Why? Because, like you said, just as you don't particularly value the things Ravenclaws or Gryffindors would likely value, just as a Gryffindor might find you incomprehensible for valuing the things a Slytherin would, Harry did not value the things about Snape that Snape himself would have valued. And Snape, I think, knew by the end that Harry had to know that he was at least a trustworthy person for him to buy into Dumbledore's plans, and also knew that this would take something more than Harry's just knowing that Snape's good at what he does. I have my own feelings about the Snape storyline, but I still think that Snape valued all the things you said he did. However, I also think he knew that HARRY did not -- and to get Harry to trust him, he would have to show Harry things about himself that Harry *would* value, that would allow him to filter Snape through his own values, and see him as a good person. Hence, this is why I think Harry was given all those memories about Lily. We know Harry values courage and love and all that, which is why that would stick in his mind as Snape's greatest qualities, which is why bravery would be the only thing he'd mention to his son about Snape; it's what made him see Snape as something other than a complete jerk. I completely disagree, though, that this means Harry didn't acknowledge Snape's other qualities. Said qualities are things he wouldn't mention to his son, because it wouldn't occur to him to reassure Al that he'd still be great at Potions or spells or a skillful double agent, if he were a Slytherin. I just don't think these things would matter to Harry (or to Al). >Lealess: As for the "Slytherin light," I think Harry, > and perhaps JKR, are incapable of acknowledging that ambition is not > a fatal flaw or that networking is not always insincere or that > seeking power is always done for selfish reasons. I can't fill in > events that did not happen to assure that Harry acknowledged these > things in DH. > Amy: Actually, and I'm mostly recalling this from an earlier discussion about Slytherin traits appearing in "good" characters, we know that the twins are at least as ambitious as Percy. And that Hermione was able to do a fair bit of networking to form Dumbledore's Army. Yet these aren't automatically the things that would come to mind when describing either the twins or Hermione, because again, they aren't shown in a way that would make us believe Harry valued these things about Fred and George and Hermione. I agree that Slytherin values got shafted in these books, most likely because of the Harry-filter. This is probably why it comes across as "any time a Slytherin seems to be doing something good, they also seem to be acting like a Gryffindor": things like Draco pulling Goyle from the fire, or Snape, or Regulus sacrificing himself. Amy From va32h at comcast.net Sat Sep 29 00:35:49 2007 From: va32h at comcast.net (va32h) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:35:49 -0000 Subject: Snape/Expelliarmus (Was Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177526 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "starview316" wrote: > Snape taught Harry "Expelliarmus" (which he acknowledged in > CoS: "Shouldn't have let Snape teach us that one."), which has become > his signature spell. va32h: Just to go on another tangent here - I see this sentiment a lot "Snape taught Harry his signature spell". And I really think it's become one of those legends like "someone will do magic late in life in book 7" that has really been extrapolated into something HUUUUGE, when it's not. There was the Duelling Club. Snape used the spell once, against Lockhart. Harry copied him. This is not "Snape personally instructed Harry in the spell he would later use to defeat Voldemort three times!" It's more like "Harry and a bunch of other kids were in the room when Snape used the spell, and so they heard the incantation." Technically Snape taught everybody in the club "Expelliarmus", if they did not know it already. And it's a standard spell, after all, not some arcane knowledge carefully handed down. Harry would have learned it eventually. Harry learns other spells just by hearing the incantation and copying it...I just don't see how this has become one of the defining moments of the Snape/Harry relationship. It's a nice bit of irony, but that's all, IMO. On another topic, I've seen it mentioned a few times that Snape's bravery redeems (or improves) Slytherin House...but for me, anything Snape did to positively reflect on Slytherin House was totally negated by Dumbledore's comment "Sometimes I think we sort too soon," (which is CANON, as we've been told to provide) and which I can only interpret as Dumbledore saying "Snape, you should not have been in Slytherin, because you actually have redeeming qualities.' va32h From 12newmoons at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 01:10:47 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 01:10:47 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177527 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "vexingconfection" wrote: > > > Laura: > > My guess is that the Dursleys hated magic because it gave other > > people power that they could never get, not even by buying it or > > bullying it out of someone. But if they could have gotten magical > > powers, all of a sudden it would look pretty good to them, because > > they're all about status. > vexingconfection: > I think the Dursleys would choose to not admit to any child even if it were Dudley's. Even though it was hinted that Petunia hated wizards and witches out of jealousy- I see alot of prewar Germany in JKR's books. The Nazis also considered themselves to be a master race deserving of leading the world and those who were not of pure blood did not deserve to live. Does anyone else see the similarities? > Laura: JKR lives in a culture in which race and ethnicity are very much live issues, due to the influx of people from Britain's former colonies after WWII and continuing through the present. This mixing has not been smooth, especially in a society that was already highly stratified along class lines. So I don't think JKR had to look to Nazi Germany to see the tensions and conflicts produced by people's inability to live with those who are different from themselves. Sure, the Nazis are the extreme case, and maybe the (il)logical end of bigotry is inevitably physical elimination of the group that's perceived to be different. But we have seen more cases of racial/ethnic war since WWII than we'd like to admit. Maybe the more interesting observation that can be (and, I'm sure, has been) made is between Voldemort and Hitler. Both of them became champions of pureblood movements to which by rights they should not have belonged at all. Hitler was about as purely Aryan as Tom Riddle was purely wizard. But they managed to make their followers forget that inconvenient reality due to the force of their personalities-and the extremes to which they were willing to go. And, of course, their followers had their own reasons for buying the myth. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 03:39:03 2007 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 03:39:03 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177528 > Prep0strus: > I think she was, but perhaps not in the way we thought she was going > to. I think one big problem is that she appeared to show that there > was a human side to Slytherin - that they're not all bad, in every > way. zgirnius: I just don't understand. Yes, she absolutely did seem to show there might be a human side to Slytherins! Which is why I was expecting it to continue in DH. And guess what? I got buried under a veritable avalanche of examples of the humanity of Slytherins. More, actually, than I had expected. Draco to continue in his wish to be free of Voldemort, check. Snape to be revealed in his full Lily/DDM! glory, check. Sluggie to be at Hogwarts, and a good guy, check. That's what I was expecting. But then I got the story of Regulus Black, too, and it, too, was all about a Slytherin and his humanity. I mean, he could not bear that his House Elf was tortured, and when he went back to retrieve the Horcrux with Kreacher's help, he drank the goo himself, as he was not going to do that to Kreacher again! He chose to die in secret, without letting the story out, to protect the parents he loved from the wrath of Voldemort. I loved it, and was totally not expecting it. And also Narcissa, of course. Though I should have been expecting her again, I suppose. She already showed her humanity in "Spinner's End", when she disobeyed the Dark Lord's orders to in an attempt to protect her son. In DH, she was no longer attempting to arrange a murder, she helped to keep Harry safe by lying to Voldemort that he was dead. And did these people act against Slytherin traits to achieve this? No, I would say. Draco did nothing openly against Voldemort - that cunning we hear about. And a motivation for him was love of his pureblooded family. The same is true of Narcissa. Regulus as well, though I would say that a young man who decides to single-handedly render the Dark Lord mortal, is showing some signs of ambition as well. Sluggie? I think he had decided the Death Eaters were bad for business long before the series started. And Snape, of course, successfully deceived Voldemort about his true loyalties for sixteen years or so, which must have required a good deal of cunning. Most of them were to varying degrees, motivated by love of various sorts. That is not a Slytherin trait. Nor is it a Gryffindor trait. It is not a House trait at all. It is a nearly universal human trait, the sad exceptions being people as dreadfully damaged by life and unfortunate birth as Voldemort. > Prep0strus: And so, there were expectations that in this final book (or, > better, before the final book even) we would see some of that. See a > sorting hat song that extolled something worthwhile about slytherin, > saw a character that maners aged to incorporate aspects of slytherin > without being disliked, saw the house achieve its place as a full > equal to the other houses. zgirnius: We saw a character who incorporated Slytherin traits and managed to be well enough liked in Horace Slughorn, back in Book 6. And if anything, what little we saw of him in DH is even better. Seeing Slytherins as human beings, and seeing the house achieve its place as an equal in the book, are two different things. We got the first, in spades. I believe the second was highly unlikely given the plot of DH. If I had any idea that the Ministry would fall and Snape, Voldemort's right-hand-man, would be Headmaster with 'help' from new DE teachers, I would never have expected it. And in my opinion, this course of events was plausible in light of past revelations, and a perfectlty legitimate artistic choice. > Prep0strus: > And some people, based on the small nuggets of potential we have been > given are able to see some of that. To see Slytherins as real people. zgirnius: I can see the characters who have been *shown* to be real people that way, regardless of House affiliation. The five Slytherins I list above, and a number of characters from other Houses as well. The others, are just names on paper with a few descriptions tossed in, something I could say about students in all of the other houses as well, because characters like Blaise Zabini, Romilda Vane, Anthony Goldberg, and Hannah Abbot (to name random representatives of each house) are essentially extras. > Prep0strus: > I think, in this story, it doesn't. I think Slytherin is not a house > full of actual fully formed people and characters. I think it is a > representation of everything JKR thinks is bad: prejudice, bigotry, > racism, unchecked ambition, disregard for others, base meanness.... > and when other characters look down on and spit on slytherin, that is > what they are spitting on. they are not discriminating against a > group of people - they are discriminating against racism. And since > racism is wrong, that's ok. > > It's not very satisfying, and very frustrating considering what we've > been through with our expectations throughout the books... but it > makes more sense to me than pitying the slytherins and condemning > griffindors. because the griffindors ARE right. the slytherins ARE > wrong. there is good and bad, and slytherins represent one of those. > jkr does make griffindors flawed - it is difficult to define them as > represented as perfect beings. but even harder to represent > slytherins as equals who deserve equal treatment. it might be wrong > to treat another group of people as less than you, which is how the > slytherins are treated. but if slytherins simply represent cruel > dictators and petty bigots, then it's not only ok to look down on > them, but a good thing to look down on them - because you are looking > down on evil. i don't think slytherin is simply the racists, but > racism itself, which is why jkr has apparently made it ok to treat > them as less than people. > > i'm kind of meandering around the point i'm trying to make. and i know > it doesn't change how anyone looks at the books, because we have our > own expectations and we put different importance of meaning on > different parts. but, primarily, i don't think that prejudice against > slytherin is real prejudice in jkr's mind, because i think that > slytherins are the idea of prejudidice itself. so, yes, i think she > was aiming for an 'anti-prejudice' message, but it just doesn't count > to be prejudiced against slytherin, because that is prejudice against > prejudice - and that's always a good thing, right? > > ~Adam (Prep0strus) > From bgrugin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 04:16:55 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:16:55 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177529 > Cathy D wrote: > > And that is my problem as well. The further I get away > > from my first reading (I have not even attempted to read > > it again....uggh) the more disappointed I am and the more > > just bloody horrible it is. > > I am glad I am not the only one to be suffering at the > > moment. > > > > In fact, I've mostly quit reading and posting to this list > > because it just makes me more and more disappointed, > > frustrated, and angry all the time. > > > I had an opposite reaction. I loved Deathly Hallows and feel > almost ashamed to admit how much I liked it. I was moved to > tears several times especially during the Forest Again chapter > and Harry's visit to his parents' grave. I didn't have any real > ideas about how the book would end other than I wanted Harry > to triumph in the end. > > Kathy Kulesza > MusicalBetsy here: Kathy, I'm glad to read that I'm not the only one who loved Deathly Hallows. I too really enjoyed it, and you shouldn't feel ashamed. It's interesting to me that everyone I've spoken to where I live also loved the book, so it's frustrating to then read all the posts in this group, which seems to consist mostly of people who hated it. In fact, I've often thought lately that maybe those of us who really liked the book should start a new group. Let's face it - it's no fun to discuss the book with a group that you know will absolutely not agree with you. I'm perfectly okay with the fact that not everyone likes the book (although I truthfully feel sorry about it - I wish everyone could see the book the way I do), but it just seems pointless to have "discussions" that really are just heated arguments. I reread the book a few weeks ago, and still loved it. In fact, I read "King's Cross" and "A Flaw in the Plan" last night, and still felt moved by both chapters. To me, they were so exciting. So MY disappointment isn't in the book - it's in the harsh exchanges that's been going on in this group since July. So, anyway, Kathy, I just wanted you to know that you are not alone! MusicalBetsy, who also wished for House Unity and more of a redemption for Draco, but still really enjoyed DH From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 04:31:30 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:31:30 -0000 Subject: Disappointment, but not only dissapointment and enjoyment as well/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177530 MusicalBetsy: > I reread the book a few weeks ago, and still loved it. In fact, I > read "King's Cross" and "A Flaw in the Plan" last night, and still > felt moved by both chapters. To me, they were so exciting. Alla: Oh, King's cross, probably my favorite chapter after Walk in the forest. Every time I imagine Dumbledore looking as a boy caught in the wrongdoing I want to cry. I sooo love Dumbledore after book 7 despite all the bad things revealed about him. No, I do not think that his traumatic and to the extent evil past make him the evil man, just the grey one IMO and with remorse. Oh Love. I imagine that after loving his family and losing them and being swallowed in guilt, Harry was the first person ever in his life Dumbledore come to love, but here we are - love and plan conflicted and caused so much pain. Love. Alla. From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 04:38:20 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:38:20 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177531 > zgirnius: > I just don't understand. Yes, she absolutely did seem to show there > might be a human side to Slytherins! Which is why I was expecting it > to continue in DH. And guess what? I got buried under a veritable > avalanche of examples of the humanity of Slytherins. More, actually, > than I had expected. Draco to continue in his wish to be free of > Voldemort, check. Snape to be revealed in his full Lily/DDM! glory, > check. Sluggie to be at Hogwarts, and a good guy, check. That's what > I was expecting. > Prep0strus: Like I said, it's all about what stands out and matters to you. I mean, you've obviously seen the variety of responses people have had to the novel, and the treatment of slytherins in particular - from vindication believing they're good or redeemed, to vindication believing they're evil and irredeemable, to disappointment to thinking they're calvinisticly damned. I get how you can see what you see, but i don't see nearly enough to think slytherins are equal to other people. but i do see enough to feel cheated by how they were represented. because i wanted more from them. Draco's storyline to me was a huge disappointment, perhaps the biggest in the novel. His was the redemption story i was interested in - not dudley, though i liked it, and not snape, which i didn't care about - it all happened before the first book. still, without a likable (for me) slytherin, it still would have been a skewed universe. but draco simply appearing ambivalent and pointless wasn't enough for me. it's almost worse than descending into complete evil. at least then i'd feel he had any motivation at all. as it stands, i know people read it as him not wanting to do evil, and rebelling against it, and caring for his family and friends and all these wonderful things. i get it. but to me, it wasn't enough. i see him as lazy, cowardly, and still nasty. he is certainly not 'likeable'. and i don't think he was actually 'good' either. Snape, i've said I don't care about, and i don't. i assumed him to be 'good', and he was, but still mean, petty, and definitely not likeable. plus, as dumbledore's man he's only good by showing a griffindor trait. which is fine with me, because unlike many, i think the traits defined for slytherin ARE lesser. ambition is nice, but not equal to intelligence, hard work, or courage, and ambition at all costs, as defined for slytheirn, is evil. cunning is the bastard brother of intelligence, complete with negative connotation. and of course, there's always the wonderful spector of pureblooded bigotry. Slughorn was the disappointment of book 6. a non-evil slytherin, to be sure. just a sycophantic, gluttonous, cowardly, discriminatory, lump of a man. he comes through a bit in 7 at the end, but not enough to raise him to the level of the other heroes in the story. zgirnius: > But then I got the story of Regulus Black, too, and it, too, was all > about a Slytherin and his humanity. I mean, he could not bear that > his House Elf was tortured, and when he went back to retrieve the > Horcrux with Kreacher's help, he drank the goo himself, as he was not > going to do that to Kreacher again! He chose to die in secret, > without letting the story out, to protect the parents he loved from > the wrath of Voldemort. I loved it, and was totally not expecting it. Prep0strus: Regalus had a great story. seriously, very interesting, surprising, cool. of course, it's only when voldy treated something HE cared about with disdain that caused him to rebel. he was still a pureblooded racist who had no problem allying himself with voldemorte and performing horrible deeds to innocents before then. is regalus the incarnation of evil? no. is his sacrifice for kreacher one of the most touching examples of friendship, especially with a non-human, in the books? yes. was he a good guy? probably not. zgirnius: > And also Narcissa, of course. Though I should have been expecting her > again, I suppose. She already showed her humanity in "Spinner's End", > when she disobeyed the Dark Lord's orders to in an attempt to > protect her son. In DH, she was no longer attempting to arrange a > murder, she helped to keep Harry safe by lying to Voldemort that he > was dead. > Prep0strus: It's nice she loves her son. Again, it doesn't make her any less of an evil bigot. I don't understand why someone having ANY good trait makes them entirely good. Evil people can love their families. Someone doesn't have to be devoid of anything good inside them to be predominantly bad. If her family weren't threatened, she'd still be doing evil. And, even the best case scenario, with no voldemorte, she just gets to live with her husband and son... she's just a rich racist. That's slytherin. not all slytherins are actively evil. but they're mostly reprehensible even when not being evil. zgirnius: > And did these people act against Slytherin traits to achieve this? > No, I would say. Draco did nothing openly against Voldemort - that > cunning we hear about. And a motivation for him was love of his > pureblooded family. The same is true of Narcissa. Regulus as well, > though I would say that a young man who decides to single-handedly > render the Dark Lord mortal, is showing some signs of ambition as > well. > Prep0strus: I don't know if i care about acting against their traits or not, because i don't see them as remotely admirable. i think they were looking out for number 1 - very slytherin. it's what they want, and screw the rest of the world. at the end, they don't believe in equality, they don't undergo any redemption. they make it through with their own skins. Except Regalus, whose noble sacrifice still leaves him a pureblood supremicist ninny. zgirnius: > Sluggie? I think he had decided the Death Eaters were bad for > business long before the series started. > Prep0strus: Yes, yes. I get it. But he's still a slimy person. he's still portrayed negatively. i'm not saying that every slytherin was totally portrayed as demonspawn. but he still leaves a bad taste in my mouth - he's still negative. and by the end, i can't think jkr wanted us to think anything but that slytherins are negative, are less, than the others. > zgirnius: > I can see the characters who have been *shown* to be real people that > way, regardless of House affiliation. The five Slytherins I list > above, and a number of characters from other Houses as well. The > others, are just names on paper with a few descriptions tossed in, > something I could say about students in all of the other houses as > well, because characters like Blaise Zabini, Romilda Vane, Anthony > Goldberg, and Hannah Abbot (to name random representatives of each > house) are essentially extras. > Prep0strus: And for me, by the end of this book, while we were given some 'interesting' characters, slytherin=bad. slytherin means racism and prejudice and cruelty. and even the 'exceptions' cannot rise to the level of acceptable behavior. of all of them, exactly one was never evil at some point. slughorn is the best, the shining example of what a slytherin who doesn't choose to be evil is. And he's still a bigot (a mild one, but a bigot nonetheless). And he creates division amongst students, dismissing those who can't do anything for him. He's predominantly a coward. Snape, nasty, turned toward evil, eventually redeemed... the nicest thing anyone ever says to him is that he should have been in griffindor. and whether or not narcissa loves her son doesn't make her a better person in the world at large. draco i still have pretty much zero respect for (i know that's primarily my own opinion, not shared by many, but there you go). and regalus... great story, but let's not forget what else he was, other than a man who loved his elf. he was a bigot and a terrorist. Look, it's great people enjoyed these characters, and their complexities. but to see real equality over these books, i can't just have a handful of characters who aren't entirely bad. there should have been some who were, you know, GOOD. doesn't have to even be MAIN characters - just ANY characters. ones who didn't become death eaters. ones who fought on the side of good because they believed in it. there should have been a slytherin that i might actually ever want to interact with, and didn't leave me with a nasty taste in my mouth. and to me, it seems clear jkr couldn't bring herself to give them equality. never could give them a song that didn't stress their negatives at least as much as their so-called positives. she couldn't bear to have them participate in the battle on the good guys side. they weren't in the da, they didn't defend the castle. all through the books we're just shown that if somebody is doing something rotten... well, 99% likely it's a slytherin. and because of snape being on the good side, because of the apparent inner turmoil in draco in hbp (again, huge letdown for me in dh), because, holy cow!- slughorn wasn't a DE!!!, because well, they're allowed in the school and dumbledore tries to treat them with respect and the hat says there should be unity... well, i thought that somehow, in some way, they were going to be represented as equals. and for me, at least, i just didn't get that. my point in my last email was to say that i don't even think jkr saw them as equals. some posters see something akin to what i do - that they were in the books constantly put down as evil, and because of this, the books actually show prejudice, show bigotry - TOWARDS slytherin. and it's my opinion that jkr meant slytherin to represent bigotry and wrongheadedness, and that looking down on slytherin can't be any more wrong than looking down racism itself. i think for the most part she was clumsy. if she wanted them to be all bad, she did fail at that. but if she wanted them to be equals, characters with as much potential for good and for affection as those from any other house... than she failed much more. some posters really seem to like snape or draco, and that's fine. but there isn't a single slytherin that i'd want to spend more than 30 seconds in the presence of. i don't think putting a good, likable slytherin in the story simply slipped her mind. if she wanted us to have one, we would have. since we don't... we see in the story what we see. Your five characters do very little to make me think that slytherin house should exist at all. the world would be better off without them. ~Adam(Prep0strus) From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 29 04:48:08 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 04:48:08 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177532 > lizzyben: > Regarding DD as God-figure: JKR has called him God-like. I don't > think he's God. But he serves as a metaphor for God. In DH, Harry > loses his faith in God, wanders in the wilderness without guidance, > and feels that the signs his God has left him are useless. He > wonders if God ever loved him at all. After Harry's crisis of > faith, he eventually chooses to submit to God's will & show > obedience to God's plan, sacrificing his life for the good of the > world. As a reward, he receives God's love & approval; and returns > to earth as a Christ-figure. In that sense, it works well as a > Christian allegory. Jen: This one section caught my eye because I found it an intriguing imagery - did Harry indeed follow these steps? I took a look myself and found this: > Lizzyben: > But he serves as a metaphor for God. In DH, Harry loses his faith in > God... DH: "Dumbledore's betrayl was almost nothing. Of course there had been a bigger plan; Harry had simply been too foolish to see it, he realized that now. [...] How neat, how elegant, not to waste any more lives, but to give the dangerous task to the boy who had already been marked for slaughter, and whose death would not be a calamity, but another blow against Voldemort." (DH, chap. 34, p. 693, Am ed.) Jen: Harry didn't appear to lose faith in Dumbledore: 'his betrayl was almost nothing,' and Harry goes on to agree with Dumbledore's neat and elegant plan. > Lizzyben: > wanders in the wilderness wihtout guidance... DH: "Dumbledore knew, as Voldemort knew, that Harry would not let anyone else die for him now that he had discovered it was in his power to stop it." (p. 693) "But he pulled himself together again: This was crucial, he must be like Dumbledore, keep a cool head, make sure there were back-ups, others to carry on." (p. 696) Jen: Harry is keeping his own counsel here, making his own decisions. > Lizzyben: > ....and feels that the signs his God has left him are useless. DH: "The Snitch. His nerveless fingers fumbled for a moment with the pouch at his neck and he pulled it out. *I open at the close*. He pressed the golden metal to his lips and whispered, "I am about to die." (p. 698) Jen: Harry believes the sign Dumbledore left him, the one that has been a mystery to him the entire year, is very significant and valuable in the moment when he understands the meaning of it. > Lizzyben: >He wonders if God ever loved him at all. Jen: Harry does wonder if Dumbledore the man ever loved him in a prior chapter, not in the forest: "I don't know who he loved, Hermione, but it was never me." (chap. 18, p. 362) Lizzyben: > After Harry's crisis of faith, he eventually chooses to submit to > God's will & show obedience to God's plan. Jen: Per above quotes, Harry doesn't seem to experience a crisis of faith and does decide on his own the action he'll take. Harry says that Dumbledore knew what he, Harry, would choose to do once he had all the facts in hand, not that Harry felt manipulated into doing something he didn't agree was best. > Lizzyben: > ...sacrificing his life for the good of the world. Jen: As quoted before, Harry believes only that handing himself over to Voldemort will stop the killing going on in the moment because he is the one Voldemort wants, and that Harry has left three individuals to carry on with eliminating the last Horcrux. Nothing about saving the WW is on Harry's mind at that moment. In fact, he thinks by leaving a Horcrux he has failed: "But Dumbledore had overestimated him. He had failed: The snake survived." (chap. 34, p. 693) > Lizzyben: > As a reward, he receives God's love & approval; and returns to > earth as a Christ-figure. Jen: I assume you are talking about when Dumbledore meets him at King's Cross? I believe Harry always had Dumbledore's love and approval regardless of what Harry believed throughout DH. So he is not gaining something back he lost or never had when Dumbledore greets him. In fact, the opposite is true, Dumbledore believes that Harry hates him: "You know what happened. You know. You cannot despise me more than I despise myself." "But I don't despise you -" "Then you should," said Dumbledore. (chap. 35, p. 715) >lizzyben: > ...and returns to earth as a Christ-figure. Jen: Others have addressed this point. I honestly don't see as much Christian symbolism as others did to have much of an opinion here. Lizzyben: > Yes, the "Power the Dark Lord knows not" came down to a super- > powerful Wand. Harry gained the allegiance of an amoral power, and > that power, gained by force, allowed him to take out LV. The > whole "love" speculation was just silliness. Harry never entered > the locked room. He never had to learn how to love someone to beat > LV. He didn't have to show compassion to beat LV. He just needed > force. Jen: Except for Harry choosing to turn himself over to Voldemort so the killing would stop, and ensuring there were others who could destroy the last Horcrux and defeat Voldemort after he was gone (thus stopping more killing and oppression), and Harry being joined by his loved ones in the forest, and carried out by Hagrid who loved him dearly - except for those moments, then yes, there was no love at all. ;) Harry's power wasn't the allegiance of the Elder Wand, it was the allegiance of humans, beasts and beings who believed in him and he in them. Jen From bgrugin at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 05:10:17 2007 From: bgrugin at yahoo.com (bgrugin) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:10:17 -0000 Subject: Disappointment, but not only dissapointment and enjoyment as well/ Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177533 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > Oh, King's cross, probably my favorite chapter after Walk in the > forest. Every time I imagine Dumbledore looking as a boy caught in > the wrongdoing I want to cry. > > I sooo love Dumbledore after book 7 despite all the bad things > revealed about him. > > No, I do not think that his traumatic and to the extent evil past > make him the evil man, just the grey one IMO and with remorse. Oh > Love. > > I imagine that after loving his family and losing them and being > swallowed in guilt, Harry was the first person ever in his life > Dumbledore come to love, but here we are - love and plan conflicted > and caused so much pain. Love. > > Alla. > MusicalBetsy here: Oh, I feel the same way! What about when Dumbledore actually starts crying, and Harry reaches out to comfort him? It's really come full circle now. Dumbledore really shows his humanity here. I loved how he admitted to Harry how selfish he was after his mother died. This chapter is so powerful! And then everything else comes full circle in the next chapter: Neville taking on Voldy, Mrs. Weasley taking out Bellatrix, and of course, I love the scene where Harry is fighting Voldy. But I did wish that there was a "Ginny running into Harry's arms for the big finale kiss" scene. But I guess JKR felt that Fred's death would just be too painful for a reunion yet. Oh, but I also loved McGonagoll's anguish when she thinks Harry has died! Just everything in those two chapters was powerful. And although I wanted more info in the epilogue, I was okay with it - "Albus Severus" pretty much said it all for me. MusicalBetsy, glad to know I'm not alone From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 07:07:40 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:07:40 -0000 Subject: Changes I would make. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177534 --- Meliss9900 at ... wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > Shaun Hately did an astological analysis of the > particular scene based on three sets of coordinates > I gave him for likely locations of Hogwarts. I think > the result was that while it was very difficult, it > was not totally impossible for the book to be correct. > > Melissa: > > What locations did he use? I've been trying to > duplicate the Venus/Orion sighting with my Starry Night > program. I have managed to have them in fairly close > proximity during the day hours (4:44 pm @ 58N 4W) but > haven't had any success in the middle of the night. > > Melissa > bboyminn: Of course, I meant 'astronomical' not 'astrological'. I think there is an element of common recognitions that comes into play. Nearly everybody recognizes Venus/Orion, but, while Saturn is reasonably recognizable, Scorpius is not. Certainly, you and I, as well as others recognize it, but I don't think it is what I would regard as common knowledge. To some extent, what I'm saying is that when a author needs the moon to be full, the moon is full, whether it is or not in reality. It's artistic license. As to the locations of Hogwarts, check my maps - 'Where in the World is Hogwarts?' http://www.homestead.com/BlueMoonMarket/Files/Hogwarts/hogwarts1.htm On the first image, I will give you coordinates for areas 1a) and area 3). Area 1a) 57d 45m 00s N 04d 35m 00s W Area 3) 57d 02m 00s N 03d 42m 00s W I chose these locations based on Rail Lines, Roads, and village locations, as well as geographic descriptions. I believe the third location Shaun used was near Fort William, but I personally think that is too far south. Keep in mind, as I recall, that Shaun's analysis indicated only the slimmest possibility of these object being viewable in the sky; a possibility, but a slim one. If I can find that thread, I'll post it, but it was several years ago. Steve/bboyminn: For links to my other Maps, see the Links section of the group under the title Speculative Geography. All my maps begin with 'Where in the World is ...?'. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/links/Speculative_Geograph_000972354701/ From lizzyben04 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 07:22:32 2007 From: lizzyben04 at yahoo.com (lizzyben04) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 07:22:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177535 > > lizzyben: It's > > the total opposite of an emotional catharsis. > > Pippin: > But it's always that way for the characters of tragedy. They don't escape. > The consolation is that we're not them. It's too late for them, not us. > *We* don't have to be unaware of the agony of the neglected child > until he's grown and leaving packages with ticking metal hearts > under benches at the train station. lizzyben: Pippin, I really like your interpretation & I wish I could believe that that's the lesson we're supposed to take. But if that's the case, why does Harry feel *less* awareness of the child's agony the longer he talks to DD? Why are kids still sorted into a House that indoctrinates them with a bad ideology? I just feel like there's no connection made between the way children are treated & who they later become - eg Harry is neglected & turns out OK. Snape is neglected & becomes a Death Eater. Why? Well, maybe because Harry is simply a good person & nothing will change that. It goes back to this sensation that people are basically born good or bad in the Potterverse, regardless of circumstances. > Lizzyben: > > How does that vision fit in with "don't pity the dead"? Shouldn't we > > pity that damned soul? > > Pippin: > Pitying things we can't help is all about us, not them. > > JKR wants us to pity children *before* they become so damaged > that no one can help them. > > http://www.chlg.org/ > lizzyben: My impression was that we shouldn't pity the dead because they're in a "better place," etc. I like your interpretation better - but if JKR is in these good causes, why wouldn't she want people to pity or care about the fate of her Slytherin kids? Why would she imply that they're all just irredeemable & bad? > > Pippin: > They're not souls at all. > A ghost, according to Snape, is the imprint of a "departed soul." > That is why Nick can't tell Harry anything about death. He is > neither here nor there, only a "pale imitation of life" that he > chose to create before his soul departed. lizzyben: I always thought that ghosts were the souls of wizards who were afraid of death & unable to "move on." Nearly Headless Nick says "Wizards can leave an imprint of themselves upon the earth, to walk palely where their living selves once trod ... I was afraid of death. I chose to remain behind. I sometimes wonder whether I oughtn't have ... Well, that is neither here nor there ... In fact, I am neither here nor there..." (OP38) If it's just an imprint, & their souls are happy in heaven, why the connection to fearing death? Why does he say he chose to remain behind? Can a ghost ever be released? > Pippin: > How can he have been born in that prison? What's imprisoning > Voldemort is his choice to divide his soul with murder, and then > to make the division irreparable by constructing horcruxes. lizzyben: Mrs Colefrom the orphanage: "He's a funny boy." "Yes," said Dumbledore, "I thought he might be." "He was a funny baby, too. He hardly ever cried, you know. And then, when he got a little older, he was... odd. He scares the other children." (HBP) Dumbledore: "Marvolo, his son Morfin, and his daughter Merope, were the last of the Gaunts, a very ancient Wizarding Family noted for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the generations." HBP makes clear that Voldemort was born with significant mental impairments; that he was unable to show emotion as a baby, and that he was already psychopathic at a very young age. LV was basically born "evil". The text also makes clear that LV's was the natural outcome of a family of "bad blood" - not only was he evil from birth, but he was almost *destined* to be evil because of his bad genes. DD's not surprised that LV is evil or violent; he *expected* it because of the Gaunt's tainted family bloodline. That's a level of predestination that I find creepy. And it's not predestination in a religious sense. It's almost predestination in a *genetic* sense - "bad blood will out." Ick. I don't know how HP can imply that there are good & bad bloodlines while also preaching against "blood prejudice", but whatever. Pippin: > > And making horcruxes can hardly be an inborn > trait. If Jo meant to indicate that Voldemort was born in his prison, > why not make him a natural killer like the basilisk, and have that > alone enough to keep his soul from repair? lizzyben: The prison, as I see it, is this. JKR creates a universe in which the only way to repair a torn/damned soul is by showing remorse. She also creates LV as a psychopath almost since birth, and psychopaths are *unable* to feel remorse. Logically, therefore, LV is predestined to damnation in the universe she has created. JKR chose to write it that way - LV didn't have a chance. Pippin: > I'm not sure how you base your assumptions about Jo's beliefs. > I am really uncomfortable with making assumptions about > someone's beliefs based on their denomination. I am an > official of my synagogue, and I can tell you I've never met > anyone who wanted to join because they've reviewed the > adopted resolutions of the Union for Reformed Judaism > and want to express their agreement. > > As far as I know, we haven't even got primary source > information for what denomination JKR actually belongs to, > much less what attracted her to join it. It could be she liked > the choir lizzyben: Well, if it's any consolation, it makes me really uncomfortable too. I really wish JKR hadn't gone there. But when she says that her religious beliefs guided the way the plot of the last novel unfolded, I think that makes those beliefs relevant in interpreting the book. And in the plot, I see a lot of predestination, a sort of Elect of good people, and a vision of damnation. It's definitely got Christian influences, & IMO it shows Calvinist influences as well. That's not to say that the Harry Potter novels actually reflect Calvinist beliefs accurately, or that Calvinism embraces or believes any of the themes in the novel, because I don't think that's true. (Especially with some of the immoral actions taken by the good guys.) It's more like "Rowlingism", which reflects JKR's personal worldview & influences from many different areas. > Pippin: > They could feel compassion. That's why Harry wants to help, why > Dumbledore sorrows for Severus and for his sister and for Harry. > But no compassion can help Voldemort. > > They are in a place where there are no more lies, no deceits, > at least that's what I think all the whiteness and light symbolizes. > Harry is satisfied with what Dumbledore tells him, and for > the first time in his life, he isn't tempted to lie to DD himself. He's > not submitting to corrupt authority. He's submitting to the > truth, either the truth as the more advanced soul of Dumbledore > sees it, or the truth as perceived by what Harry projects > as the best and wisest part of himself. > > If deceit is impossible, then they can't win Voldemort's > confidence by pretending to sympathize with him. He hurts > at the expression of honest love. That his skin is gone suggests that > he has rejected even the comfort of touch. What comfort there > is for him seems to lie in being forgotten. lizzyben: Being forgotten is a comfort? I dunno, if there was ever a time that LV'd be willing to listen, that would seem to be the moment. But it's less about what DD & Harry's actions say about LV, and more about what they say about DD & Harry. Nothing good, I'm afraid. Even if it's useless, IMO they should've tried. I think the Harry of POA would've tried. But in DH, Harry ignores the baby w/o even being told who or what it is - simply because DD told him to. Pippin: > You see the flayed child as something Voldemort becomes after > he dies. If so that would be a good reason to fear death. But I > see it as what Voldemort already was, if we could have perceived > his true self. If he returned to the living world and continued to live > as he had been, he would only be putting himself into a worse > state. lizzyben: I see it that way. Harry sees it that way. And JKR sees it that way, too. That's LV's soul, & that's what he'll become after death. Harry says "try for a little remorse, I've seen what you'll become". LV has very good reason to fear death. Even if you see that as the present condition of his soul, that condition is certainly not going to improve after death. Pippin: > When the characters say dying is easy, surely they're referring > to the moment of transition between life and death, and not > to the agony that might be involved in getting a healthy person > to the point of death. Harry already knows that if Voldemort > decides to kill him slowly, it's going to hurt. He's been through > that. That's not what he's asking Sirius, who fell through the veil > and died almost instantly. > > Pippin lizzyben: OK, I'll buy that. It still felt like a false platitude to me, especially because the real Sirius wouldn't be so eager to speed Harry along on to martyrdom on Dumbledore's say-so. I understand accepting death, but that scene seemed to almost glorify death in a way I was uncomfortable with. But that's just a personal reaction. Mus: When he was orphaned (because unlike the saintly Lily, Merope, far from loving him enough to die for him, couldn't bring herself to stay alive for him)... Mus, whose heart breaks for Merope. lizzyben: Going back through HBP, I am kicking myself anew for believing the propaganda. In the Pensieve scene, DD wisely informs us that "Merope refused to raise her wand, even to save her own life... She chose death, in spite of a son who needed her... she never had your mother's courage." But in the actual memory, Mrs. Cole says that Merope staggered into the orphanage on a bitter cold New Year's Eve, had her child & then died one hour later. She died in childbirth! How was that her fault or her choice? Jeeez. (Presumably the same way LV's inability to feel remorse was his "choice".) In the other memory, the shopowner says that Merope came to his shop "just before Christmas", "covered in rags & pretty far along." "She said she needed the gold badly... Going to have a baby, see." DD says that Merope arrived alone in London & in desperate need of gold, desperate enough to sell her only valuable posession for ten Galleons. So, Merope, unskilled & uneducated, is abandoned by her husband & dumped on the streets of London. She is near the end of her pregnancy, homeless, wearing only rags, and living on the streets in the middle of winter. Near Christmas, she is happy to get even 10 galleons that allow her to find something to eat. She was presumably still living on the streets two weeks later, when she staggers into the orphanage on Near Year's Eve to give birth. She's giving birth after being weakened by months of malnutrition, no medical care, and living outside in the harsh winter. She dies an hour after childbirth (as a result of exhaustion, dehydration, infection, isn't clear), but makes sure to give her son his father's name, hope that he looks like his papa, and ensure that the baby is born in a place where it will be raised, sheltered & protected. And we're told to judge her & feel contempt for her because she "chose" to die & wasn't "strong enough" to stay alive for her child. She just wasn't as courageous as Lily, who... uh, chose to die. Where is it that Merope "chose" to die in childbirth? Would we say that most mothers who die an hour after giving birth "chose" to die, because they were so morally "weak"? That's so twisted. I also really dislike JKR's implication that LV was born evil because he was the result of a "loveless union". So this is Merope's punishment? God forbid that a woman should be a divorced single mother in this fantasy world where everyone else is happily married by 21. Merope is one of my favorite characters, & I didn't even notice the way that her story was twisted & scorned until now. lizzyben, about to pull a Ginny & just toss these books already. From johnsmithatx at hotmail.com Sat Sep 29 07:46:26 2007 From: johnsmithatx at hotmail.com (JP Smith) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 00:46:26 -0700 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177536 I don't think we should be so harsh on the Slytherins. I think what the overall idea of the house is that they have the potential to be bad people, more so than the others. In Sorcerer's Stone, The Sorting Hat says: "Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends" Right there in the first book we know right off the bat what each house admires as good traits for their members. It's very obvious that above the others there are going to be more lecherous folk in Slytherin than the others, simply by the traits they admire, ambitious people always have the proclivity towards "evil". Maybe that was the idea of having the house, to sort of wrangle in just how to use these dark thoughts and ideas into something more productive. Or maybe the idea was, if you take the psychological approach, that inside each of us we all have the potential for dark deeds, and we must accept that fact. Additionally, JKR never comes outright and says all Death Eaters were in Slytherin. Correct me if I am wrong. Also, Slughorn wasn't such a bad guy, was he? Granted, not much of a hero in the end. Let us not forget Snape, as well. Something else to think about is that we, the readers, really only see a microcosm of the students in the books. Draco and his cronies weren't the only Slytherins just like Harry and the gang weren't the only Gryffindor. We barely even look at the other houses. So it's kind of like the bad apples of the bunch, I think. I think the idea of the houses and their competitiveness is an interesting one as well. It's almost as if it's designed to create the in-fighting. Wouldn't it have been great if Harry's true love had been a Slytherin? Magical Romeo and Juliet! I also might be the only person that actually like DH. I really did and I thought it wrapped the storyline up nicely. johnsmithatx From muellem at bc.edu Sat Sep 29 13:52:18 2007 From: muellem at bc.edu (colebiancardi) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:52:18 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177537 >"JP Smith" wrote: > > I don't think we should be so harsh on the Slytherins. I think > what the overall idea of the house is that they have the potential > to be bad people, more so than the others. > > In Sorcerer's Stone, The Sorting Hat says: > > "Or perhaps in Slytherin > You'll make your real friends, > Those cunning folk use any means > To achieve their ends" > > Right there in the first book we know right off the bat what each > house admires as good traits for their members. It's very obvious > that above the others there are going to be more lecherous folk > in Slytherin than the others, simply by the traits they admire, > ambitious people always have the proclivity towards "evil". colebiancardi: hmmmmm.....yes, they do talk about that Slyth's use "any means", but how is that any different from what happened in DH's and the trio? They used "any means", the Unforgivables, to achieve their end as well. The "end" doesn't have to mean evil or wicked. Could mean something like ending world hunger. Now, don't get me wrong. I am not a fan of "the end justify the means" theory and in fact, I totally disagree with it. Which is why I am so hard on the trio in DH. >johnsmithatx: > Additionally, JKR never comes outright and says all Death Eaters > were in Slytherin. Correct me if I am wrong. colebiancardi: If I remember correctly, JKR wrote in the HP books that not all Slytherins were DE's. The only DE we know that isn't Slytherin is Wormtail. So, based on canon, it seems that Wormtail was the oddball - everyone else did start out in Slytherin or they were nasty foreigners from cold countries (Igor) > johnsmithatx: > Also, Slughorn wasn't such a bad guy, was he? Granted, not much > of a hero in the end. Let us not forget Snape, as well. colebiancardi: Slughorn was portrayed as a man who just wanted to save his skin. He seemed to have remorse, which saved him in the end. I like Sluggy - at least he is human and has some faults that people can relate to (or at least to me) Snape - my favorite character. He made a mistake, made atones for it and still in the end, got a horrible death. I disliked that message - a lot. I didn't care that Harry spoke up for him - AFTER Snape was dead - and named his kid after him (well, the middle name - I guess giving one of his children Severus's name as a first name was too much for Harry). Snape DID use "any means" to achieve the "ends", using lying and spying and leading a double life and yet he doesn't get to live after all of that hard work. Sure, DD died - but DD died because of his own carelessness (the cursed ring) and DD got to choose the manner in which he died. Snape saved him from dying a horrible death and gave him a peaceful one. Also, DD was 150 years old - Snape was what - 40? And not much of life - 1/2 of devoted to leading a double life. One that prevented him from healing himself and trying to establish a personal life. People in RL can lose a great love and yet they manage to go thru the 12 stages of grief and then move on to love another. The majority of adults who have gone thru the loss of a loved one understand that doesn't mean that Lily's memory or Snape's love for her would be dimished, but in JKR's world, you can only have that "one great love" and if it is gone, you can never love again. That concept is alien to me. Would Snape's mission and sacrafice 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 >johnsmithatx: > Wouldn't it have been great if Harry's > true love had been a Slytherin? Magical Romeo and Juliet! > colebiancardi: For some weird reason, I would have loved Luna and Draco to get together. But that is just me :) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Sep 29 13:56:02 2007 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:56:02 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts (was Re: Changes I would make.) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177538 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: bboyminn: > As to the locations of Hogwarts, check my maps - > 'Where in the World is Hogwarts?' > http://www.homestead.com/BlueMoonMarket/Files/Hogwarts/hogwarts1.htm > > On the first image, I will give you coordinates for > areas 1a) and area 3). > > Area 1a) > > 57d 45m 00s N > 04d 35m 00s W > > Area 3) > > 57d 02m 00s N > 03d 42m 00s W > > I chose these locations based on Rail Lines, Roads, > and village locations, as well as geographic > descriptions. > Geoff: Putting aside astronomical considerations, I wrote back in message 83994 (posted 02/11/03) putting forward my judgement that Hogwarts could be possibly on Rannoch Moor or on the Knoydart peninsula because of their remoteness. Looking at the maps, I also posted message 83968 on the same date pointing out that Peebles (with an 's') has had no railway connection since 1967. Bearing in mind that the Hogwarts Express is a Wizarding World train, I did also suggest in those posts that Hogsmeade does not match up to any of the existing railway termini in the Highlands and is possibly a magical branch line hidden to Muggle eyes. Even if it follows real main lines until into Scotland, the route is odd. If Hogwarts, as I suggest is in the West Highlands, the logical route would be to follow the West Coast Main Line from Euston (which is about half a mile from King's Cross) directly up to Glasgow. Going up the East Coast Main Line from KX takes you stright into Edinburgh and you then have to head west into Glasgow to take you in the right direction. It is not easy to avoid going through Glasgow or Edinburgh; the only route is to leave the WCML at Motherwell, not far north of Lockerbie (of Pan Am 104 notoriety) and then travel through Carstairs into Stirling - which is really too far east. It is probably not connected with these considerations, but in the 'medium which dare not speak its name', the Hogwarts Express is frequently shown crossing Glenfinnan viaduct on the West Highland line from Fort Wiliam to Mallaig. From 12newmoons at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 13:49:48 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:49:48 -0000 Subject: Blood protection (was: Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177539 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > > ...the protective enchantment that's ending is Dumbledore's, which was based on Lily's blood protection. > > > > Laura wrote: > > Really? So the same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW? > > Carol wrote: The blood protection that *Lily* provided came about because she had a chance to live but chose to die instead, apparently a unique occurrence in the WW until Harry's choice to sacrifice himself in some ways replicates it. Laura: So the protection Lily gave was specifically physical? That is, it protected Harry's body wherever he was? Or, to be more accurate, it would protect Harry's body from LV. Other agents, such as a basilisk, would still be able to kill him, right? Carol wrote: > But the blood protection that *Dumbledore* placed on 4 Privet Drive is different, based on Lily's sacrifice but using her blood connection with Petunia to protect Harry. Essentially, Petunia sealed a magical pact by taking Harry in. As long as Harry can call 4 Privet Drive home, *there* (and only there) he cannot be harmed. *That's* the protection that expires when Harry turns seventeen. Laura: So am I right in theorizing that DD essentially blackmailed the Dursleys into taking Harry by making Privet Drive a sanctuary (in the sense of its being a safe place, not a holy one!)? The first letter would have said something like "Dear Petunia, your sister has been murdered by LV, and if you don't want your family to be next, you'd better take her child in", right? Of course, DD would be more diplomatic than that, but the threat would be the essential point. If so, that might provide some justification for Petunia's attitude towards Harry. We know that she was bitter and resentful about Lily's magical abilities, but DH suggests that as a young adult she was able to control her feelings enough to maintain a civil relationship with her sister. That would only work if their relationship was conducted at a distance, so Petunia wouldn't be forced to interact with any manifestations of the WW. But suddenly she's thrust right back into it through no action of her own, and if she tries to stay uninvolved, her family is going to be in mortal danger. That sounds like a pretty good reason to be angry to me. Obviously, taking her anger out on Harry was just wrong, though, there's no debate about that . Yet again, DD decides what's best for people without consulting them. What if he had talked to Petunia himself, rather than leaving a baby in a basket with a letter? Petunia might not have had any other good options, but at least she would have been part of the decision-making process, which would leave her with some sense of control over her life. Carol wrote: "The same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a > parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW." Protection > like *Lily's* only came about because she had a choice to live and > chose to die instead. > Carol, who can find the canon if necessary to clarify the distinction > between the blood protection placed by DD on Privet Drive and the > original protection provided by Lily's sacrifice, which DD's spell > builds on and extends Laura: Yes, I'd like to see it. The distinction raises a lot of questions for me. Let's imagine a scenario in which A wants to kill B, but C intervenes and sacrifices herself instead. Will B then be protected against any further attempts by A to kill him? Do B & C have to be related by blood for that protection to work? What if Tonks had died to protect Remus? What about 2 people who aren't related at all? Is this protection good for the entire life of A or B, whoever dies first, unlike DD's, which was only good until Harry became an adult? Laura, who is beginning to wonder about the power of blood compared to the power of love in canon > From 12newmoons at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 15:22:00 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:22:00 -0000 Subject: Dudley's Dementor encounter (Was: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177540 Carol wrote: > The only bad things we know of that have happened to Dudley before the Dementor attack are the "giant" Hagrid breaking down the door of the hut and giving him a pig's tail and the Weasley Twins giving him a candy that caused his tongue to grow about four feet long, causing him to choke and his mother to pull on it and make his pain and fear even worse. > I'm quite sure that those incidents are the experiences Dudley relived during the Dementor attack... > Laura: I don't see how Dudley's reliving those experiences would lead to his concern for Harry in DH. They would tend to make him fear wizards, reasonably enough, and they must have been quite traumatic. But according to JKR, Dudley saw himself exactly as he was when the dementors attacked him. The physical results of a dementor attack- nausea, chills and so forth-were Dudley's first reaction after Harry saved the two of them, and at that moment Dudley was in no condition to think deeply (imagine Dudders thinking deeply about anything-what a concept!) about what he experienced during the attack itself. It would only have been much later, after he was fully recovered and feeling safe again (well after Harry returned to Hogwarts) that he would have been emotionally able to consider what he saw at that time. It's greatly to Dudley's credit that he confronted his memory at all-human nature would be to deny that it had any reality. Instead, he looked squarely at the picture the dementors presented to him and acknowledged to himself that it was true. Innocent people like Hagrid and Sirius (and Harry, of course)relived moments of terrible emotional pain when they were in contact with the dementors. Evil people like Bella and the DEs weren't affected by the dementors because they were emotionally and morally warped, so that no memory of any act they'd committed or any experience they'd had could hurt them. Dudley is somewhere in the middle-he did bad things, but he was not so morally stunted as to be beyond redemption. For someone like him, it appears that a dementor attack might be a very healthy reality check-provided that the victim acknowledge the truth of what he experienced-and that the attack ends before the dementor can kiss him. From terrianking at aol.com Sat Sep 29 15:34:23 2007 From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:34:23 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177541 lizzyben writes: And we're told to judge her & feel contempt for her because she "chose" to die & wasn't "strong enough" to stay alive for her child. She just wasn't as courageous as Lily, who... uh, chose to die. Where is it that Merope "chose" to die in childbirth? Would we say that most mothers who die an hour after giving birth "chose" to die, because they were so morally "weak"? That's so twisted. Robert: I wouldn't say she was unskilled or uneducated. She knew how to use a wand and she could read and think for herself. She was able to make a darn good love potion to use on Tom, Sr. Her choice was made when she stopped giving it to him and gave HIM the choice to stay or leave. He left and that is where her downward spiral began. Knowing she was pregnant, he abandoned her - after she thought he might at least show concern for his child. She gave birth to her baby and left it where he/she would be safe - a Muggle orphanage in case the child was nonmagical. She felt her life was already over. She had left her home, taking a precious keepsake with her, and run off with someone she believed to be a good man. When he turned out not to be, it was too late. She had cut her ties to her family and couldn't go back, or so she was probably thinking. The baby was born healthy, so Merope was able to eat. She wasn't starving. She was wearing rags so she could use what money she had for shelter and to eat and keep the baby healthy. She had no husband, no family to fall back on, especially after selling the Slytherin locket which her father and brother held more dear to them than her, but she was giving her child what she considered to be a good start. He was left in a well run orphanage which she must have known had a good reputation for caring for it's charges. She went there intending to leave him whether she lived or died. She could have gone to St Mungo's after all and been taken care of by the magical world, but no, she chose to give birth at a Muggle ORPHANAGE. Merope gave up way back when Riddle, Sr. showed no concern for their child. Whether she walked away or gave up and let herself die, she was giving her child a chance without the mother who made so many bad choices she felt she wasn't good enough for him or her to know. There is nothing twisted about it. Robert From eggplant107 at hotmail.com Sat Sep 29 16:15:08 2007 From: eggplant107 at hotmail.com (eggplant107) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:15:08 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177542 "lizzyben04" wrote: > And it's not just that individual > people are evil, but entire families are evil And history has shown us that this is not limited to fiction, sometimes in the real world entire families are evil, or at least almost the entire family. To pretend that genetics has nothing to do with ones personality is quite frankly ridiculous. > Oh sure, occasionally a random genetic > mutation produces a good person from a > bad family (Sirius) And don't forget Regulus! Yes, mutations can be quite beneficial sometimes. And sometimes the opposite can happen and an evil person can come from a very good family. That's why I wish JKR had turned Percy evil; it would have been much more interesting. This is not unusual in literature; in Paradise Lost the Devil was more interesting than God. > Slytherins are bad blood, and no > good can come of them. So this is the point you think JKR is trying to make in book 7, a point she makes right after she tells us that Regulus, Snape, and Slughorn are good Slytherins. Seems like a very odd way to make a point. > blood is destiny, and Gryffindors & > Slytherins are essentially sorted at birth. Except, JKR informs us, for those who are not. > YAY! Ethnic cleansing! It is a perfectly understandable human trait to want to be provocative, but as I said before if one tries too hard at this one enters silly town. > It's downright evil. If your post is not a caricature of a typical Rowling critic, if it is to be taken at face value then we have indeed entered silly town, if not the Twilight Zone. Eggplant From 12newmoons at gmail.com Sat Sep 29 15:40:34 2007 From: 12newmoons at gmail.com (kneazlecat54) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:40:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing In-Reply-To: <007301c7fc30$be566030$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177543 > Laura wrote: > 7. Do you see Dudley and Harry having any further contact throughout their lives? > > Doddie wrote: > Yes I do..because Dudley will want to keep in contact. > > Shelley wrote: > I would hope so too, because Dudley doesn't have much of a good role model in his mom and dad, now does he? Harry is about the only person who would be really honest with him, and I think Dudley would need that and want to spend more time with Harry so that he could learn to be a better person from him. Laura: It occurs to me that Dudley might seek Harry out in order to feel safe. Let's suppose that the Dursleys all returned to their regular lives after LV was defeated. Vernon and Petunia, both masters of denial, would be very happy to pretend the entire previous year had never happened and resume their lives where they left off. But Dudley was permanently changed by his new self-awareness. Knowing that evil wizards can exist, I think he might want to stay in contact with Harry just in case some new threat came along from the WW. And I agree that he can be someone with Harry that he couldn't be with his parents. You have to wonder how Dudders would go back to *his* old life. Being known at school as the chief bully and boxing champion probably wouldn't appeal to him any more. Would he return to Smeltings at all? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 16:38:00 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:38:00 -0000 Subject: Blood protection (was: Re: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177544 Carol earlier: > The blood protection that *Lily* provided came about because she had a chance to live but chose to die instead, apparently a unique occurrence in the WW until Harry's choice to sacrifice himself in some ways replicates it. > Laura responded: > So the protection Lily gave was specifically physical? That is, it protected Harry's body wherever he was? Or, to be more accurate, it would protect Harry's body from LV. Other agents, such as a basilisk, would still be able to kill him, right? Carol responds: Right, or at least, that's how I see it. He's protected from Quirrell, but Quirrell is possessed by Voldemort and is Voldemort's agent. He's not, apparently, protected from death by falling, or Snape would not have needed to save Harry's life by countering Quirrell's curse (with the unwitting aid of Hermione, who thought she was saving Harry from Snape) and would not have needed Fawkes' tears to save him from the Basilisk (itself an agent of Memory!Tom but still fatal, apparently). The drop of blood in Voldie's veins adds another level of protection, tying Harry to life while Voldie lives. > Carol earlier: > > But the blood protection that *Dumbledore* placed on 4 Privet Drive is different, based on Lily's sacrifice but using her blood connection with Petunia to protect Harry. Essentially, Petunia sealed a magical pact by taking Harry in. As long as Harry can call 4 Privet Drive home, *there* (and only there) he cannot be harmed. *That's* the protection that expires when Harry turns seventeen. > Laura: > So am I right in theorizing that DD essentially blackmailed the Dursleys into taking Harry by making Privet Drive a sanctuary (in the sense of its being a safe place, not a holy one!)? The first letter would have said something like "Dear Petunia, your sister has been murdered by LV, and if you don't want your family to be next, you'd better take her child in", right? Of course, DD would be more diplomatic than that, but the threat would be the essential point. > > > Yet again, DD decides what's best for people without consulting them. What if he had talked to Petunia himself, rather than leaving a baby in a basket with a letter? Petunia might not have had any other good options, but at least she would have been part of the decision-making process, which would leave her with some sense of control over her life. Carol responds: Poor Dumbledore, being blamed yet again for JKR's plot needs. She wanted Harry to be an orphan and a foundling and yet live with his Muggle relatives as an unloved stepchild, so she had him (or rather, Hagrid) leave Harry on the doorstep with a note from DD tucked inside his blankets. We're never told exactly what the note said, only that DD explained what he had done in the letter he left inside Harry's blankets (OoP Am. ed. 836), but clearly Petunia did know that Lily and James had been murdered by Voldemort and that the house (or part of it) had been blown up and that Voldemort had tried and failed to murder Harry and that Harry was still in grave danger (either from a resurrected Voldemort or from his angry followers). Clearly, she (unlike Vernon) also knew that by taking Harry in, she would activate a magical protection on the house which would protect her family as well as Harry (as DD reminds her in OoP with "Petunia, remember my last." He tells Harry in OoP, "She know that allowing you houseroom may well have kept you alive for the past fifteen years" (836). I don't think such a letter necessarily entails blackmail. It would simply explain the danger to both Harry and the Dursleys (as his nearest relatives), and Petunia, out of fear of a fate like her sister's but also, possibly, out of a vestige of the love she once felt for her sister (or fear of what the neighbors would think if she didn't take in the baby left on her doorstep) took him in. I see DD's letter as most likely an explanation and a warning rather than blackmail, but without the letter itself, it's impossible to say. Certainly, Harry's safety was DD's primary consideration. Lily's sacrifice saved Harry at Godric's Hollow, but DD is taking no chances that her blood will save his life again. He must be kept in a safe place, hidden from the DEs, until he's of age. That protection expires either on his seventeenth birthday or when he ceases to call 4 Privet Drive home, as we see in DH, but the blood protection from his mother remains in his veins. Voldemort can touch him now, as he couldn't in SS/PS because of the shared drop of blood, but he can't kill him, at least not until the scar link is destroyed and Nagini is killed, at which point both Harry and Voldie are mortal. (It's important for Harry to *think* he can be killed when he first faces Voldie in DH, but that's another topic.) > Carol earlier: > "The same protection wouldn't come into effect any time a parent sacrificed him or herself for a child in the WW." Protection like *Lily's* only came about because she had a choice to live and chose to die instead. > > > Carol, who can find the canon if necessary to clarify the distinction between the blood protection placed by DD on Privet Drive and the original protection provided by Lily's sacrifice, which DD's spell builds on and extends > > Laura: > Yes, I'd like to see it. The distinction raises a lot of questions for me. Carol again: Well, I promised to oblige, so here goes. I'm snipping a lot for the sake of conciseness, so you may want to refer to the passage at full length instead of my edited version. DD is speaking to Harry after the battle at the MoM: "You might ask--and with good reason--why it had to be so. Why could some Wizarding family not have taken you in? . . . . My answer is that my priority was to keep you alive. You were in more danger than perhaps anyone but myself realized. Voldemort had been vanquished hour before, but his supporters--and many of them are almost as terrible as he--were still at large, angry, desperate, and violent. And I had to make my decision too with regard to the years ahead. . . . I was sure [Voldemort would return], and I was sure too . . . that he would not rest until he killed you. . . I knew that even my most comples and powerful protective spells and charms were unlikely to be invincible if he ever returned to full power. "But I knew too where Voldemort was weak. And so I made my decision. You would be protected by an ancient magic . . . which he has always . . . underestimated. I am speaking, of course, of the fact that your mother died to save you. She gave you a lingering protection he never expected, a protection that flows in your veins to this day. I put my trust, therefore, in your mother's blood. I delivered you to her sister, her only remaining relative. . . . . "She may have taken you grudgingly . . . yet still she took you, and in doing so, she sealed the charm I placed upon you. Your mother's sacrifice made the bond of blood the strongest shield I could give you. While you can still call home the place where your mother's blood dwells, there you cannot be touched or harmed by Voldemort. He shed her blood, but it lives on in you and her sister. Her blood became your refuge. You need return there only once a year, but as long as you can still call it home, there he cannot hurt you" (835-36). Carol, hoping that this quote is sufficient to distinguish between the protection placed on 4 Privet Drive by DD's protective charm (sealed by Petunia when she took Harry in) and the blood protection provided by Lily's sacrifice that saves Harry from Quirrell!mort in SS/PS From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 17:29:52 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:29:52 -0000 Subject: Dudley's Dementor encounter (Was: CHAPDISC: DH3, The Dursleys Departing) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177545 Carol earlier: > > > The only bad things we know of that have happened to Dudley before the Dementor attack are the "giant" Hagrid breaking down the door of the hut and giving him a pig's tail and the Weasley Twins giving him a candy that caused his tongue to grow about four feet long, causing him to choke and his mother to pull on it and make his pain and fear even worse. > > > I'm quite sure that those incidents are the experiences Dudley relived during the Dementor attack... > > Laura responded: > I don't see how Dudley's reliving those experiences would lead to his concern for Harry in DH. They would tend to make him fear wizards, > reasonably enough, and they must have been quite traumatic. But > according to JKR, Dudley saw himself exactly as he was when the > dementors attacked him. The physical results of a dementor attack- > nausea, chills and so forth-were Dudley's first reaction after Harry > saved the two of them, and at that moment Dudley was in no condition > to think deeply (imagine Dudders thinking deeply about anything-what a > concept!) about what he experienced during the attack itself. > > It would only have been much later, after he was fully recovered and > feeling safe again (well after Harry returned to Hogwarts) that he > would have been emotionally able to consider what he saw at that > time. It's greatly to Dudley's credit that he confronted his memory > at all-human nature would be to deny that it had any reality. > Instead, he looked squarely at the picture the dementors presented to > him and acknowledged to himself that it was true. > > Innocent people like Hagrid and Sirius (and Harry, of course)relived > moments of terrible emotional pain when they were in contact with the > dementors. Evil people like Bella and the DEs weren't affected by the > dementors because they were emotionally and morally warped, so that no > memory of any act they'd committed or any experience they'd had could > hurt them. Dudley is somewhere in the middle-he did bad things, but > he was not so morally stunted as to be beyond redemption. For someone > like him, it appears that a dementor attack might be a very healthy > reality check-provided that the victim acknowledge the truth of what > he experienced-and that the attack ends before the dementor can kiss > him. > Carol responds: I'm privileging canon over interviews, which I never trusted and trust even less now. Canon tells us that a Dementor encounter causes a person to "relive the worst moments of their life" (OoP Am. ed. 30), and somehow I think being attacked by wizards and nearly choking on your own tongue would be worse in Dudley's mind at a time when he still hates and fears Harry and thinks that Harry cast a spell causing the darkness and "the clammy cold as hope and happiness were sucked out of you" (31) than anything Dudley himself has done to Harry. Harry's worst memory, after all, is his parents being killed, not something he himself has done. All we know is that Dudley "h-heard . . . *things*. Inside [his] head" (30, JKR's emphasis and ellipses). I think the experience of being *saved* by Harry (once Dudley realized that the Dementors were real and not a lie Harry was telling to get out of trouble) would have made Dudley grateful. Certainly, that's what he indicates in DH with "you saved my life" (DH Am. ed. 40). Dudley no longer thinks that Harry is "a waste of space" and he has tried to express his gratitude with a cup of tea inside Harry's door, but there's no indication *in the books* that he's seen the light about himself or that his Dementor-induced visions included anything other than his worst memories. Since "spoiled, pampered, bullying Dudley" 30) has never suffered fear or pain except at the hands of wizards (he keeps his bottom covered when the Weasleys show up, indicating his memory of the pig's tail and his mouth covered with the Dementor, either following Harry's advice or remembering the ton-tongue toffee) and still fears Harry's magic ("W-what are you d-doing? St-stop it!" (16), it seems clear to me that both his greatest fear and his worst memories involve magic, specifically, the use of magic against him. We certainly see nothing else in canon that could qualify as a "worst moment" for Dudley. After the attack, he still thinks that Harry has cast a spell on him. There's not the least sign of gratitude, much less self-understanding or remorse. Once Petunia has made clear that Dementors really exist, Dudley says nothing more. Perhaps his slow mind is figuring out what really happened (though he doesn't understand what having his soul sucked out means): Harry didn't cause the cold and dark and bad memories. He saved Dudley's "life" from the "dementy-whatsits" (to quote Uncle Vernon) by casting a Patronus charm (as Harry is finally able to explain on p. 36). But we don't get Dudley's thoughts. We just see in HBP that he's still terrified of wizards (Dumbledore's sofa-moving and brandy glasses and summoning of Kreacher doing nothing to relieve that fear), and yet by DH he has come around to the point of seeing Harry as a member of the family and wondering why he's being left behind. But Dudley himself gives the reason for his change of attitude: "You saved my life" (DH 41). It seems likely that Dudley has been thinking about and regretting his mistreatment of Harry in his dim way and trying to make up for it with a cup of tea and a handshake, but I don't think it's because he heard himself telling Harry to stand in the toilet or his parents ordering Harry to stay in his room (or cupboard). Those aren't *Dudley's* worst experiences. Harry asks Dudley if the Dementors blew a new personality into him and Dudley replies, "Dunno" (DH 42). Most likely, they didn't. It's the aftermath of the experience, the horror of the Dementor attack followed by the realization that Harry saved him from something even worse (death, he thinks) that causes the gratitude, which in turn causes the change in behavior. And I suppose that regret for bullying Harry could spill over into regret for bullying Mark Evans and others, but we don't know that. All we know is that, for Dudley, Harry is now an okay guy, a member of the family. It's rather sad that Harry sees the change in him so belatedly, but nothing to shed tears over. We can hope that Dudley won't become another Vernon and that he won't lump all wizards together as beings to be feared, but that's about it. Carol, who thinks that Dudders is going to be one bored boy without his computer or even school to attend and that seeing others performing magic around him won't improve matters Carol, From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Sep 29 17:43:29 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:43:29 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177546 > Magpie wrote: > > Well, yes. I'm sure the person is advancing it as an interpretation > that works. I'm strictly talking about my way of reading the book and > how many interpretations just don't ring true for me at all except as > something written by the reader that isn't backed up in the text but > grafted onto it. > > > I mean, clearly some of the things that to me are nice but huge > stretches work for you, but that still doesn't make them any more > believable to me, or sound like JKR's style of writing, so they don't > help me. > > > > It'd be great if I thought this stuff was convincing rather than > just eloquent, because it would put some great depth in the book. I > just don't find the explanations that it is there convincing. > > > Carol responds: > > But the same thing works in reverse, doesn't it? Remarks along the > lines of "I'm disappointed" and "the book doesn't live up to its > promise" are subjective reflections of an individual reader's > disappointment, not objective analyses of the text. Magpie: Of course. But I'm not so much talking about "it was disappointing" or "it was great" but more stuff like "this is what this line in canon means is happening and it's a good/bad thing." I've found certaining readings on both the positive and negative sides to be unconvincing, and it's not like anything positive anybody has said about DH I didn't believe. But the negative interpretations don't have to convince me. I already feel negatively about the book--if I don't happen to agree with a particular criticism we're still united in not liking the book. It's the people telling me the book was good that I'd be reading to see if I would change my overall attitude. And a lot of the wonderfully uplifting interpretations I've read (as opposed to just people who seem to see the book the way I do and like it while I don't) don't to me seem to have much to do with what's actually written there at all. So they're not convincing to me. Carol: (Value judgments > of any kind, even those based on standardized criteria, are by their > very nature subjective.) You say that extrapolations from the text > aren't convincing, but all these generalizations about how bad the > book is aren't convincing, either. How about pointing out *specific^ > flaws and *showing* that they're flaws, or rather, why you interpret > them as flaws? (I do "get" the problem with the Unforgiveable Curses, > for example, and the apparent contradiction between their depiction in > GoF and their use in DH, and I agree that the apparent inconsistency > within JKR's moral universe can legitimately be interpreted as a flaw. > But that's one specific flaw, and it does not apply to the book as a > whole, only to certain scenes.) Magpie: In this post I was being asked about my own reactions, which is why I only talked about my reactions. I wasn't proving one interpretation over another, but describing my reaction. I have been happy to talk about specific flaws elsewhere, but I'm not doing it a lot on this list because people have been getting upset about too much negativity ruining their experience. However, I have certainly already spoken up to argue with some specific positive interpretations that I thought didn't hold up in canon and have said why in those posts where I was addressing a specific theory. Carol:> > You talk providing about canon support, but I don't see it in the > recent spate of posts from three or four disappointed readers. Please > correct me if I'm wrong, but what I see are charges that the book is a > Calvinist (or antinomian) tract, that Slytherin is still the House of > the "damned" (or, at least, the enemy of the other Houses--I would > argue that since the Slytherins didn't fight in the battle, whatever > Draco and his cronies were doing partially excepted, but sat out the > battle, so they were neutral rather than enemies), and that the House > unity "promised" by the Sorting Hat (which actually expressed an > appeal for unity rather than a promise) was violated. I have yet to > see evidence from the books other than "the Sorting Hat's new Song" in > OoP that House unity would be an important motif and I don't > understand the emphasis being placed on it, as if the presence or > absence of House unity determines whether the book is good or bad. Magpie: I can't talk about those things, because those aren't my specific interpreations. As I said to Alla, I don't see the Hat's song as a promise that House Unity will happen. I thought it was a perfectly reasonable guess since the Hat seemed to be warning them that they needed to do this to save the school--just as I thought the line "he would never forgive Snape!" was a sign that Harry would forgive Snape. It turns out it wasn't a promise, it was just a random opinion interjected by the Sorting Hat. Obviously House Unity wasn't an important motif ever (if by House Unity we mean all four houses united). That seems clear as day now. The way it looks to me, Slytherin has their part in the school, it's just not one of an equal house, but rather the house that keeps the less than noble qualities. So obviously JKR didn't fail at doing House Unity when it was never their intention. I might find the set up she prefers to leavea a bad taste in my mouth, but she did it consistently. What I flatly disagree with are claims that we could be presented with a House that's separate from all the others throughout canon, and then just assume that off-page and between the lines this House Unity storyline is actually happening or going to happen, any more than I'd assume that House Elf freedom is coming after the story ends. It could happen, but it's a different story. I have to be shown how and why for it to be real to me. Carol: > (We've talked about writing style, but what about plot development? > Suspense? Characterization? Humor? Believability? *Other* themes? What > do the characters' choices reveal about them, for example?) > > I understand that some readers find the book disappointing based on > the violation of their expectations, Magpie: Or based on the fact that they didn't like what was written--iow, not that they were reading it wrong. I thought a lot of the book was full of contrivances that made it not only unbelievable but boring, and that many of the points of characterization were a bit clunky and seemed to be there as an attempt to pad out the year so that we could stick with a school calendar without school without really leading anywhere--here again I suppose I'm at fault that when something like Lupin's odd behavior was introduced my expectations were raised for it to go somewhere that felt like it was building rather than just being a contained bit of business we get reports on that he takes care of off-page. But as I said, I'm not bringing all of my thoughts on the book to the group because I'm trying not to be negative about everything I'm negative about. None of these things have to do with House Unity, since as I said I don't consider that a particular flaw in DH--you can't fail at a storyline you're not writing as far as I can see. I think that the set up that we *do* have in the book is done perfectly competently, but is also a set up that I find bizarre and creepy, and one that doesn't seem to say anything much true about the world or people as I recognize it, so it's going to be something that keeps me from much caring for the book. In the end the values and world it seemed to be fighting for didn't seem very inspiring to me personally. I don't know whether that can be discussed as a flaw in the writing. Though I have discussed it elsewhere when disagreeing with certain interpretations about, say, the epilogue. I think the House Unity thing is talked about a lot because it's a way of discussing what makes people uncomfortable about the books. The way Slytherin is set up actually does seem to be a bigger problem in this world than whether or not one snakey-bad guy gets killed or not so some people who won't go along with that being part of what they consider a happy ending. I would, however, not say that it's based on just the Sorting Hat's new song. It starts the second Harry hears that there isn't a bad wizard who wasn't born into Slytherin, and Harry refuses it, and there's the Heir of Slytherin and they're always against Slytherin and on and on. This House is the biggest problems at Hogwarts throughout the series. That's where people got their wrong idea that this was a problem to be addressed. I got it wrong, but I can't blame myself too much for not realizing that a House of...what to call them? Sin eaters? was in fact an important part of the world- buildling. Slytherin's House of Low-lifes is a very important part of this world. (Another reason I personally don't by all the second generation kids falling into friendship after the final page very likely, or even that they're halfway there.) Many people have no problem with this set up, some don't like it. As you put it, Voldemort is the one who wants unity (of a dark kind). Harry's job is to stop that new social order from happening. He is not offering a counter-revolution instead. Carol: > It would help, BTW, if you quoted one of those "eloquent" > interpretations that doesn't ring true for you and then used canon and > logic to show why you find it unconvincing. Magpie: I quote them when I choose to argue them on the list. This thread is talking about our general feelings of disappointment and how they have or have not changed. > Carol responds: > > I agree. We need to look at particular scenes to see why one > interpretation works better than another (or why both are valid since > a definitive interpretation is probably impossible). So let's look at > the Albus Severus scene (since I think it's a key to the whole > Snape/Slytherin plot arc). *Why* doesn't Harry's line to Albus Severus > show that they're on the way to House unity, in your view, and what > *does* it show? Why is that bit of dialogue included in the epilogue > at all if "then Slytherin House will have gained an excellent student, > won't it? It doesn't matter to us" (DH Am. ed. 758) is not an > improvement over "Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, > wouldn't you?" (671)? Why isn't having Severus Snape, "probably the > bravest man I ever knew," as the representative Slytherin a huge > improvement over Slytherin as the House of Voldemort and the one from > which most of the Death Eaters came? Magpie: It's not like I haven't already answered this in numerous threads that were actually about this topic after DH came out. Nineteen years after the Battle, JKR establishes the same attitude about Slytherin we came in with. James is teasing his brother that he might go there, and AS is worried he will. None of these things had to be in there-- she could actually have established the Slytherin had changed simply by showing the kids 19 years later as having a different attitude (which no, would not have been totally unrealistic). Harry's response is a perfectly normal mature parental response: Whatever house you're in is fine. You happen to be named after the Slytherin who was good enough for Gryffindor--the house of the brave. But if it really bothers you, the hat won't put you there if you don't want it. Seems more about Harry loving his son and giving the standard parental response than any huge change in Slytherin. It certainly isn't something 11-year-old Harry would have said, but it just doesn't indicate some big social shift to me. But could this mean that Al is going to get Sorted into Slytherin even though he shows no sign of being one? Could it mean that he'll be bff with Scorpius? Yeah, it could. Although of course the author's own interpretation is merely to say that Slytherin is "diluted" now and so not the bastion of Pureblood superiority, but retains its rep as the Dark Arts House (awesome!). Scorpius has many things already going against him, according to her, not the least that name. (What could Scorpius have going against him at 11 years old, exactly? Could it perhaps be anything like his father had going against him?) But whether or not these things could happen, imo, Slytherin's role as the Dark Arts House, the somehow "bad" house is established in book 1 and goes consistently for 7 more books--ending with it being clearly different from the other houses in the final battle. Turning it into just another house equal to others after thousands of years requires an actual story and change for me. If House Unity wasn't ever a theme in the books, why on earth would I assume that a scene 19 years later that mostly shows who everybody married, with the same people still being friends with each other, with their children having similar ideas about Slytherin that their parents had, means that it's on its way? To me it makes far more sense to say that Snape's managing to earn the compliment that maybe he'd been Sorted wrong at 11 by being so brave and thus Gryffindor is simply a sign that maybe one day the dream could happen--but that was always true. As the author said in an interview, that's why they keep Slytherin around, in the Dumbledore-like hope that one day they could have unity. (Though I think canon suggests a completely different reason for keeping them around.) Maybe thousands of years in the future Slytherin will change enough so that they can join the rest of the school. But it didn't happen in this story and it didn't happen 19 years after this story so I don't see how it's part of this story. If little Scorpius is going to become friends with Albus like Snape was friends with Lily and have it actually lead to House Unity, JKR will have to write that book for it to happen, imo. The same misty possibility for change existed when Harry got on his train--somehow it never entered the mind of him or any of our heroes that this particular change was worth making. Nor is anyone saying it needs to in the epilogue. The short answer I guess being: If she didn't write House Unity, why would I think she wrote House Unity? Carol: Harry is at least attempting to open > Albus Severus's mind, a huge change from Hagrid's ingrained prejudice > against Slytherin transferring itself to Harry. Maybe you would have > preferred to see Draco and Harry and their sons on better terms, but, > IMO, that would be unrealistic. Things aren't perfect, but surely > they're better than they were. Magpie: I have no specific desire for Harry and Draco's sons one way or the other in the epilogue, but Albus and Scorpius being already friends before Hogwarts certainly is not "unrealistic" at all. > Magpie: > It wasn't like Harry's "He would never forgive Snape!" (Harry > did change how he felt about those people, just imo in an incredibly > lame and undramatic way.) > > Carol responds: > > "Lame and undramatic" sounds subjective to me, not the sort of thing > that can be proved or disproved through canon. You were expecting > something different, maybe a scene like Mrs. Weasley's defeat of > Bellatrix for Snape? Magpie: Yes, it was subjective. That's why I wrote IMO at the end of it, because I was describing my own reaction. And I wasn't expecting anything specific--certainly not anything like Mrs. Weasley's defeat of Bellatrix, whatever that would mean. I simply reacted to to the storyline I got and found it underwhelming, dramatic as your own passionate thank-yous to Harry and JKR might be. > > Magpie: > She could have written something else that was just as compelling or > more so. I thought the book was disappointing on its own. I didn't > like what she did write, so the ghost of the book that might have > been is still hanging around. > > > Carol: > > But don't you see how subjective this judgment is? Magpie: Of course I see how subjective this judgment is. If she'd written something that actually interested me I'd be interested. It didn't have to be House Unity, it just obviously wasn't this. It's not like I said that because I didn't find it interesting you didn't either. Carol:> > Just out of curiosity, what "compelling" scenes or themes (aside from > House unity and a thoroughly reformed Draco) do you think should have > been included in "the book that might have been"? Magpie: I don't feel like coming up with some phantom DH. As others have said, I actually DIDN'T have the book pre-written in my head and I'm criticizing JKR's book because it didn't match up to it. I didn't want to write the book, I just wanted to like it. The only thing I know about the book that "might have been" was that I found it a satisfying end to the stuff that came before. How that was done was up to JKR. I don't think the problem is all me with unreasonable demands or "interrogating the text from the wrong perspective" as Anne Rice would say. > Magpie: > > If a writer raises an expectation and delivers something else and > the thing she actually did deliver still leaves me saying, "I'm more > interested in that other thing," that's a misstep. > > Carol: > > How is one reader's interest in a "thing" that the author chose not to > focus on a "misstep"? It simply means that the reader would have had a > different focus, a different plot, a different story. It doesn't mean > that JKR's chosen path is flawed, just that JKR is focused on > different elements of her own story than the reader is Magpie: No, that's not what it means. It's not about me being more interested in the other thing, it's about what I'm given being uninteresting enough for me to be thinking about other things. The misstep is in not holding my interest, not in my having other interests besides the one the book's about. I'm perfectly capable of being interested in other things while also finding the thing I'm reading interesting. If my attention's wandering while I'm reading it's not working for me. > Carol: > I don't know of a single person who claims that "House unity actually > did happen brilliantly." Magpie: It's totally on its way in What we've said is that Slytherin is no > longer the House of budding Death Eaters and the epilogue shows or at > least implies the potential for House unity in the future, for an > altered Slytherin with real heroes to look up to and emulate. Magpie: Yes, there was always this chance. It just wasn't necessary for a happy ending. Too bad the one Slytherin who could be emulated because he was maybe Sorted to early is gone (and that his behavior everybody mostly saw was almost uniformly awful while he was alive, so that emulating him made Slytherins worse). > Magpie: > > As to what it has to do with JKR as a writer, well, speaking in a > generic term, choosing what to write about is part of being a > storyteller, so if somebody thinks the author avoided the good stuff > that's a criticism of her as a writer. > > Carol: > No, because what "somebody thinks" is "the good stuff" is subjective. Magpie: And that doesn't make it criticism? Criticism is subjective. That doesn't make it less valid, imo. Isn't talking about what the author chose to say talking about the book? Would it be equally worthless if somebody talked about the themes JKR chose to present in a way that was positive? I think saying "I didn't like what the author had to say" is perfectly valid criticism of a work. I'm sure some authors are compared to others in terms of what they have to say, this being part of the author's craft. > Magpie: > But my problems with DH go far beyond "She didn't do House Unity or do > something better with Draco Malfoy." > > > > I mean, when I'm criticizing the book I feel like I ought to talk > about what's in the, not what's not in the book. > > Carol: > Exactly. Why *aren't* we talking about "what's in the book"? Why *are* > we talking about what isn't there? You say you want canon-based > arguments. Magpie: Well, in this thread we're doing that because it's about disappointment. I assume other places we are talking about what's in the book. I'm not talking about these things because it doesn't seem like bringing in lists of my complaints onto the list is something people really want to read, and frankly they're not things I have any interest in writing at the moment either. Carol: So do I. And that's hard to do when we're talking about > what JKR "failed" to do. Why not talk about what she *did* do? Themes, > symbols, motifs, characters, conflicts other than Gryffindor/Slytherin > that *were* resolved? Magpie: It's not difficult at all. It's a mailing list where anybody can start a thread about anything. Start one about something else. Pre-DH it seemed like the problem was that people wanted to talk about other stuff and it kept coming back to Snape. I'm sure that was frustrating for people uninterested in Snape, but the list followed the line of what people were most vocal about. This is what people are most vocal about in DH. That seems like what really would make it difficult. People only want to talk about what they want to talk about. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Sep 29 17:57:03 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:57:03 -0000 Subject: Merope (Was: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177547 Robert wrote: > > I wouldn't say she was unskilled or uneducated. She knew how to use a wand and she could read and think for herself. She was able to make a darn good love potion to use on Tom, Sr. Carol responds: That's a problem for me. How did Merope learn to read or make a love potion? There are no books in the house and Marvolo sends owls bearing messages away, suggesting that he can't read the messages. There's no indication that Merope or Morfin ever attended Hogwarts, much less the Muggle school in the village, which would have taught them to read, or that Marvolo (not the type to read them fairytales, as Harry says in DH) would homeschool them. If Merope could read, she could get a job to support herself after Tom Sr. supported her. As it is, she's so desperate that she sells her one valuable possession to keep herself alive, and so naive and ignorant that she gladly accepts only ten galleons for it. I imagine that Merope knew a spell or two because she had heard Marvolo using them, but her concocting a love potion or even knowing that love potions exist considering who her father is just seems implausible to me. Robert: The baby was born healthy, so Merope was able to eat. She wasn't starving. She was wearing rags so she could use what money she had for shelter and to eat and keep the baby healthy. Carol responds: But what money did she have? Tom Sr. probably tokk everything he had (Muggle money, anyway) with him when he deserted her, and Marvolo certainly didn't have any. She's filthy, she's wearing rags, she's lost her magic (which couldn't have conjured food, anyway), she's desperate enough to sell the locket. she must have lived by stealing scraps from rubbish bins, keeping herself alive just long enough to give birth. If Tom was born "healthy," it was probably her remaining magic and his own that kept him alive. > Robert: > She had no husband, no family to fall back on, especially after selling the Slytherin locket which her father and brother held more dear to them than her, but she was giving her child what she considered to be a good start. He was left in a well run orphanage which she must have known had a good reputation for caring for it's charges. She went there intending to leave him whether she lived or died. She could have gone to St Mungo's after all and been taken > care of by the magical world, but no, she chose to give birth at a Muggle ORPHANAGE. Carol responds: Maybe she didn't know about St. Mungo's or maybe she couldn't Apparate, either because she'd never learned or because she'd lost the strength to do so. I think she gave birth in a Muggle orphanage because she knew she was going to die and because she had rejected magic. The Muggles would take care of him as she herself--poor, ignorant, sick, neglected--could not. Maybe she dimly hoped that Tom Sr. would come looking for his child though how he would have known where to look, I don't know. > Robert: > Merope gave up way back when Riddle, Sr. showed no concern for their child. Whether she walked away or gave up and let herself die, she was giving her child a chance without the mother who made so many bad choices she felt she wasn't good enough for him or her to know. > > There is nothing twisted about it. Carol responds: I agree that there's nothing twisted about Merope's actions. She kept herself alive long enough to give birth to her child; made sure that he had people to take care of him since she couldn't and his father wouldn't; gave her son a name reflecting his identity as both wizard and Muggle, with a clue to his ancestry on both sides; and expressed hope that he would look like his father, whom she loved though he did not love her. Had Tom Sr. stayed with her, she would never have given up hope, magic, and life itself. I understand her actions and have nothing but pity for her. I just don't understand how an uneducated, abused, and neglected girl (she was only eighteen when she gave Tom Sr. the potion) could have learned to make a love potion or where she would have found the recipe with no books in the house. Carol, trying and failing to imagine Merope (or Morfin) at Hogwarts From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 29 20:30:50 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:30:50 -0000 Subject: Merope (Was: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177548 > Carol responds: > > That's a problem for me. How did Merope learn to read or make a love > potion? Pippin: I wouldn't assume she learned how from a book. She must have had a mother once. Love potions being a village witch's stock in trade, perhaps Mrs. Gaunt was selling them to Muggles. It could be the Ministry found out, and put a stop to it, but Merope remembered enough of her mother's recipe to attempt it herself when she was desperate enough. Pippin From sassynpink at AOL.COM Sat Sep 29 19:18:22 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (sassynpink at AOL.COM) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:18:22 -0400 Subject: JKR's writing style (was Re: Changes I would make) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9D0E4A2E0BF60-E98-5BE3@FWM-M17.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177549 va32h: In the course of normal events (normal by HP standards anyway), characters don't scoff and smirk and hiss and mumble their way through every conversation. When one speaks in an ordinary tone of voice, that's "he sad/she said". I find that if I read a story that uses a lot of alternatives to "said", I start to think "okay, this author is trying too hard to use variants of 'said'" and it starts sounding fake. I would quibble with JKR in that she tends to use the word "mutter" when characters are casting spells, and I don't think that word gives off the right connotation. Muttering is something one does when ones is insulting a person and doesn't want them to hear, IMO. Jules: I think that some readers and critics are forgetting that JKR is from a different culture. How her characters express themselves by muttering, murmuring, hissing and whatnot are reflective of the manner in which she is accustomed to speaking combined with the spin she put into it for Potterverse.? I have noticed the use of adverbs and have accepted it as her style. If I read a different author I get a different flavor that directly is related to the culture the author is from and the culture that he/she wishes to imbue in the story. From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sat Sep 29 21:47:03 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 21:47:03 -0000 Subject: Seeking the truth (Re: Disappointment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177550 Carol: > 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 > (but not in this post). Jen: I'm particularly interested in the topic of 'the truth' in DH if anyone is up for a discussion. 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. The slow unraveling of their intertwined experiences reminded me particularly of Harry learning the truth about Sirius, James and the Marauders in POA. 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. 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). Plus, Dumbledore expected Voldemort to seek out the Elder Wand. Since Harry never learned Occlumency, he'd be able to see this happening and might leave the Horcruxes to find out what Voldemort was after. 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.) 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). Jen From tenne at redshift.bc.ca Sat Sep 29 22:54:08 2007 From: tenne at redshift.bc.ca (Tenne) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 16:54:08 -0600 Subject: what to do with the slytherin house? References: Message-ID: <004501c802eb$a4d80610$797ba8c0@terrilaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 177551 One question I have been pondering when reading the posts about the Slytherin House is what else would you do with them besides admit them into Hogwarts and into their own house? Do you ban them from getting an education because of what their family (and probably them believe)? Do you make them have to leave their country to get an eductation? You could mingle the houses, but there is no way that Draco would be allowed to be with muggle borns or mudbloods. As far as he and his parents are concerend, its bad enough that he has to attend the same school as them. Being in the same house would simply not do. If I was part of the WW and I knew of the hate towards my child being mudblood, etc, I certainly wouldn't want them sleeping in the same room as someone who would cheer if they died. I would rather know what someone felt eg. Slytherin House, and be able to protect myself than have them living incognito beside me. But really, other than have a Slytherin House, would you do with someone like Draco? Even having them live in the same school and be in the same classes as "others" doesn't change their prejudices. Civilized people have to live with horrible people. That is just a fact of life. Look at the class bully in real life. How many of them change? Very few in my experience. Look at the Jena 6 happening in the US, has years of school intergration changed any prejudices there? What do we do with the racists or Slytherins? Terri [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Sep 29 23:40:49 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:40:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177552 > lizzyben: > > Pippin, I really like your interpretation & I wish I could believe > that that's the lesson we're supposed to take. But if that's the case, > why does Harry feel *less* awareness of the child's agony the longer > he talks to DD? Pippin: I think it symbolizes the choice Harry is making. He can die content with what he's done, and go on with his questions answered and his heart at rest, leaving the fate of Voldemort and the WW to the hands of others, or he can live and try to save Voldemort and others from the fate he sees in store for them. The child comes back into his awareness as he ponders the choice to return. Everything Harry wishes for appears instantly except a way to help Voldemort. I think he is not in a place where 'trying' is possible. He's repulsed by Voldemort, I think, because that's the way *Voldemort* wants it. And there is no way to overpower Voldemort's sovereign soul and make him want something different. Lizzyben: Why are kids still sorted into a House that > indoctrinates them with a bad ideology? I just feel like there's no > connection made between the way children are treated & who they later > become - eg Harry is neglected & turns out OK. Snape is neglected & > becomes a Death Eater. Why? Well, maybe because Harry is simply a good > person & nothing will change that. It goes back to this sensation that > people are basically born good or bad in the Potterverse, regardless > of circumstances. Pippin: Harry is innately strong and Riddle innately weak (not wicked, IMO.) Harry needs very little support from his environment and would do well under almost any circumstances. Riddle needed far more support than the Muggle orphanage could give him, but would probably have been a challenge even if Wizard-raised, though we'll never know. That doesn't mean that nothing could have been done for him, but obviously his troubles go back to his mother, who should never have been left without support after her family was imprisoned. Snape is the one who is affected most by environment. The boy we see in the Pensieve before Hogwarts is quick-tempered, cunning and greedy, but not cruel. From all we see, his Slytherin companions were kind to him. I'm going to catch flack for this, but I think we have clear canon that Snape learned his cruelty from James and co, not from the Slytherins, cruel as some of them were to others. > lizzyben: > > My impression was that we shouldn't pity the dead because they're in a > "better place," etc. I like your interpretation better - but if JKR is > in these good causes, why wouldn't she want people to pity or care > about the fate of her Slytherin kids? Why would she imply that they're > all just irredeemable & bad Pippin: But she also implies that they are redeemable and human. I think what JKR wants us to see is that despite our pop culture infatuation with freedom-loving good guys vs quasi-Fascist bad guys, that formula just does not mesh at all with the ideals of choice, freedom and human rights. In order to raise our consciousness about this, she's made it so a critical thinker can't take a consistent view of her world without abandoning one or the other. You can ignore or explain away everything that makes the Slytherins not look irredeemable and bad, and ignore or explain away everything that makes the good guys seem less than pure. What you'll have left is what many people seem to be enjoying as a rousing adventure story, with villains who can be hated without guilt and heroes that never have to compromise. You won't have to think they would look down on anyone who doesn't deserve it. But you'll be aware that this represents a world where unity is a only a dream, and there is no real choice or freedom for anyone, only eternal war. Or you can take a more realistic view and see that for all their goodness, Harry Ron and Hermione are flawed, and they live in a world with other flawed people where compromises have to be made. Theirs are not the only choices that matter. If the Headmaster was given the power to decide that some ideologies should not be taught, do we think that power would be used wisely? JKR gave us the answer in three words: Dolores Jane Umbridge. If liberal ideologies truly contribute more to human happiness and well-being than racist ones, and if people are, as liberalism contends, capable of choosing what will bring them happines and well-being, then liberal ideas should win out if people are left free to choose them. The problem is that children aren't free, and can't survive in freedom any better than House Elves could. So progress may have to come slowly, so as not to throw the baby of familial love out with the bathwater of familial misguidance. > > lizzyben: > > If it's just an imprint, & their souls are happy in heaven, why the > connection to fearing death? Why does he say he chose to remain > behind? Can a ghost ever be released? Pippin: Myrtle says she felt herself drifting away, and then she came back. It seems you can make the choice to come back, but what comes back in that case is not really your soul but a pale copy of it. So, from NHN's point-of-view he stayed behind, but from his soul's point of view, it left a copy of its frightened self and went on. None of the ghosts we've met seem to want to go to rest. Nick seems as though he's still afraid. There seem to be ways to control ghosts, because Myrtle is made to stay in her toilet after she's caught stalking Olive Hornby. But I don't know if there's a way to vanish them. Canon tells us Nick can't die again, so I guess unless they run into a basilisk and get Petrified, they remain as they are till Judgement Day, if there is one. JKR does like her cautionary tales. But not to worry, we Muggles can't become ghosts. Lizzyben: > HBP makes clear that Voldemort was born with significant mental > impairments; that he was unable to show emotion as a baby, and that he > was already psychopathic at a very young age. Pippin: Hmm...I'm not sure science recognizes pyschopaths at a young age. I think the most they would say on record is he was showing tendencies. But in any case, canon shows that his killings are conscious decisions. Regardless of having few emotions that would inhibit him from killing, he still feels that he has a choice to kill or not. DD is not surprised that Riddle is violent, but he does not know from his first meeting that Riddle is going to be evil. He warns him that there will be bad consequences if Riddle violates wizarding law. AFAIK, there are psychopaths who don't become murderers because they see that there will be bad consequences to themselves. There are socially acceptable outlets for violence in the WW -- Macnair is an executioner for the MoM, Moody is an Auror. Although Riddle would not value social acceptance for its own sake, we see that he courts it for what it can get him. So I don't buy that he had no choice but to follow his violent instincts and become a murderer. But even if that were not the case, he can't possibly have made horcruxes by instinct. That was a conscious decision except in the one case where he had already made his soul unstable by choice. > lizzyben: > > The prison, as I see it, is this. JKR creates a universe in which the > only way to repair a torn/damned soul is by showing remorse. She also > creates LV as a psychopath almost since birth, and psychopaths are > *unable* to feel remorse. Logically, therefore, LV is predestined to > damnation in the universe she has created. JKR chose to write it that > way - LV didn't have a chance. Pippin: Except that LV is a wizard, and gets choices that non-wizards don't have, like the remorse-causing potion Dumbledore drank in the cave, and his other chance, Harry's blood. Looking at what happened with Grindelwald, it seems that if Voldemort had been willing to try for remorse, he might magically have become capable of it. I admit there's not much emphasis on Riddle's choices, which makes sense to me. JKR is not addressing herself to potential psychopaths IMO, and is more concerned with showing us how to recognize and avoid them. > > lizzyben: > > Being forgotten is a comfort? I dunno, if there was ever a time that > LV'd be willing to listen, that would seem to be the moment. Pippin: I think he wasn't willing to listen and that's why Harry felt repulsed. Voldemort's soul would continue to deteriorate if he kept killing, which he had every intention of doing, so I can't see how he will be better off if he's allowed to go on killing people. I don't think anyone knows enough magic to keep him confined. He got into Grindelwald's prison easily enough. On Merope, I thought Dumbledore's point was that Harry shouldn't judge her as loving her child less than Lily loved him, but that she didn't have the courage or strength to survive. Since JKR has a link to an organization for single parents on her site, it's clear to me that the propaganda here is to support single parents. Harry is wrong, wrong, wrong to think that there is shame in turning to others for help, as he finally admits when he enlists Neville to kill Nagini for him. And of course it ought to be clear to anybody that we are not supposed to agree with Vernon that people without jobs are layabouts who deserve whatever happens to them. JKR wants to show us what happens when people don't get the help they need, IMO of course. Pippin thanking Lizzyben for her patience From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 30 01:36:31 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:36:31 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177553 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. From margdean at erols.com Sun Sep 30 02:00:48 2007 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 22:00:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? References: Message-ID: <46FF0350.8498CC5B@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177554 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. 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. --Margaret Dean From kernsac at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 02:18:13 2007 From: kernsac at gmail.com (Peggy Kern) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 19:18:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? References: Message-ID: <02dd01c80308$2c1f9c70$6401a8c0@user2b3ff76354> No: HPFGUIDX 177555 Jen: Wow, it's a slow list day! I've got a question for a slow day: why *did* Snape call Lily a Mudblood? Peggy now: I think Snape was humiliated and angry at the way he was being treated, and just spouted off what came to his mouth at the moment, kind of like a person who hits their thumb with a hammer. He was around people who used those terms freely, though in everyday life he would probably never dream of using such a term for his friend Lily. But in the humiliation of the moment, it just burst forth from him, and was something he regretted for the rest of his life. I imagine if he hung out with a different group of people, who didn't use those kinds of words, he might have used some other word to express his frustration. But his choice of words, in Lily's mind, suggested that he bought into the blood thing, and no amount of apologizing on his part could convince her otherwise. Peggy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 02:29:23 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:29:23 -0000 Subject: Seeking the truth (Re: Disappointment ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177556 > Jen: I'm particularly interested in the topic of 'the truth' in DH if > anyone is up for a discussion. > > 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. The slow unraveling of their intertwined > experiences reminded me particularly of Harry learning the truth > about Sirius, James and the Marauders in POA. 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. > > 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). Plus, > Dumbledore expected Voldemort to seek out the Elder Wand. Since Harry > never learned Occlumency, he'd be able to see this happening and > might leave the Horcruxes to find out what Voldemort was after. > 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.) Alla: I want to offer a little rambling on truth in the series in general, not just DH and maybe today I won't even talk about DH a lot. 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. Obviously author is evasive on many issues through the series. I think though that it could be useful to keep in mind the evasiveness because of plot needs, surprises and all that and sort of disregard it in order to find out how truth is treated in the books. I mean, when Dumbledore says his famous tirade about truth that is "a beautiful and terrible thing and should therefore be treated with great caution. However, I shall answer your questions, unless I shall have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course lie" ? PS/SS, paperback, p.298. Why is Dumbledore saying that "I shall not of course lie"? Why is it important? Could he not stop at "you'll forgive me"? I think that this quote shows Rowling's attitude's towards truth ? cover ups for the sake of plot notwithstanding, she refuses to let Dumbledore lie. (Being silent and secretive of course does not count, hehe). This is the book which was written by a young mom on welfare, who had no idea that her books become so popular and would be dissected by millions of fans and that she would have to guard her plot secrets so zealously. I think her intention here is clear to me anyways. And we have Dumbledore's at the end of GoF: "He will stay, Minerva, because he needs to understand," said Dumbledore curtly. "Understanding is the first step to acceptance, and only with acceptance can there be recovery. He needs to know who has put him through the ordeal he has suffered tonight, and why," "Moody," Harry said. He was still in a state of complete disbelief. "How can it have been Moody?"- ch.35, paperback, amer. edition. He needs to know. And then we switch to OOP when Harry frustrated and angry beyond anything at Dumbledore wants to know and is not allowed to, it seems. Harry is searching for the truth and he cannot find it. It seems like through OOP truth is right there, right near his fingers and then Seeker loses it again and when he catches the snitch of truth, seems too late ? Sirius is dead. 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". I love topic Jen, I may post more later. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 02:32:01 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:32:01 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177557 "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. > Carol responds: My impression is that he was humiliated to be "rescued" by a girl he liked (or probably, being a boy, by any girl). He didn't want her to see him like that, let alone try to help him, so in his anger (which was mostly at James and misdirected) he called her the worst name he could think of and immediately regretted it. (I do think, BTW, that in a fair fight, he could have given James a run for his money, and he was enraged that he had been caught in such a position, with his own spells used against him.) Ordinarily, of course, he wouldn't have done it. I used to think that "Snape's Worst Memory" was Harry's interpretation, the unreliable narrator at work again, but now I have no doubt that his blunder and her reaction left him feeling that he had no friends but the future Death Eaters, and we all know where that led. (Learning of Lily's death might have been a worse memory still, but for the purposes of the story and the affect of the incident on his life, "worst" is probably not an exaggeration.) The narrator speaks of Severus's "humiliation and fury" and I think that's an apt description of the feelings that prompted him to shout "the unforgiveable word" (DH Am. ed. 675). I'm not sure what you mean by "Did the resolution work for you"? Carol, who knows exactly how it feels to say words that you can't retract From juli17 at aol.com Sun Sep 30 02:36:08 2007 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:36:08 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177558 > Prep0strus: > > > Draco's storyline to me was a huge disappointment, perhaps the biggest > in the novel. His was the redemption story i was interested in - not > dudley, though i liked it, and not snape, which i didn't care about - > it all happened before the first book. still, without a likable (for > me) slytherin, it still would have been a skewed universe. but draco > simply appearing ambivalent and pointless wasn't enough for me. it's > almost worse than descending into complete evil. at least then i'd > feel he had any motivation at all. as it stands, i know people read it > as him not wanting to do evil, and rebelling against it, and caring > for his family and friends and all these wonderful things. i get it. > but to me, it wasn't enough. i see him as lazy, cowardly, and still > nasty. he is certainly not 'likeable'. and i don't think he was > actually 'good' either. Julie: I do see your point of view. Draco's story is one of the better examples to me of how canon leaves open several avenues of development, including the one that happened, and whether we each like how the story developed in DH or didn't like it, neither view is conflicted by canon (i.e., neither view reflects that recently popularized term "wish fulfillment). I sit in the middle on a lot of issues and this is one of them. I too wanted to see Draco to recognize the evil inherent in his pureblood ideology and turn unequivocally to the "good" side. But there was really nothing in the canon depiction of Draco that pointed to this result as the likely one. In fact there is much against it. In HBP we saw that family was the most important thing to Draco, and he was willing to at least try to kill Dumbledore to save them, even after he knew he didn't have the heart/guts for killing. (And whether you think his inability to kill is a lack of heart or a lack of guts or some combination of both is another of those unprovable points of personal interpretation.) In DH, what I saw in Draco was exactly what we saw in HBP, fear of Voldemort's power to hurt his family, a lack of true desire to torture or kill (or to watch such things), and an ambivalence to act based on his constant mental juggling of how far he can avoid doing things he dislikes while not further endangering his parents through his actions/inactions. So he is willing to go to a certain length not to reveal the Trio's true identities, so far as he can go without it becoming clear he is lying to Voldemort who may well take it out on Lucius and Narcissa. In the same vein, he is with Crabbe and Goyle, apparently willing to turn Harry in to Voldemort to save his parents lives. And note two facts here: It is Crabbe who tells Harry they are there to take him to Voldemort, while Malfoy almost immediately tries to shift the focus to obtaining the diadem, which he assumes is also important to Voldemort, presumably important enough that he can use it to at least temporarily divert Voldemort's attention from his parents and himself. At no time does Draco actually state that any intent on his part to take Harry to Voldemort, though he is clearly with someone who has every intention of doing so. In fact, it's quite unclear whose idea it was initially to pursue Harry, especially once Crabbe reminds Draco that he and his family are on the outs with Voldemort thus Crabbe doesn't have to listen to Draco anymore. Of course it all goes awry, as it so often does with Draco. And Draco shows again his primary motivation--loyalty to those he cares about-by risking his own life to save his friends Goyle and even the bloodthirsty and insulting Crabbe. My point is that Draco is actually very much in the same character in HBP that he was in DH, as far as I can see. Which doesn't mean he *couldn't* have grown more if the plot had moved along in a different manner as many fans envisioned (Draco forced to hide out and a Snape who'd always been acting on principle influencing him to change his views and allegiances, Lucius turning out to be as unloving and even abusive as he might have been given the lack of direct canon on Draco's home life, etc). But with Draco and his parents kept close to Voldemort while being in ill-favor with him throughout the books rather limited other options. Which all goes to say that I saw Draco's journey differently than you did, and I didn't see Draco as lazy or lacking in motivation or even as truly cowardly (despite moments of such that were for me mitigated by his concern for his family). Nor did I see his journey as pointless. And while like all of us I would have liked to see a Draco more like the one I imagined before the release of DH, on this issue JKR did not in any way forshadow such a Draco. We didn't all get what we wanted with Draco, but she didn't cheat him, IMO. Prep0strus: > Snape, i've said I don't care about, and i don't. i assumed him to be > 'good', and he was, but still mean, petty, and definitely not > likeable. plus, as dumbledore's man he's only good by showing a > griffindor trait. which is fine with me, because unlike many, i think > the traits defined for slytherin ARE lesser. ambition is nice, but not > equal to intelligence, hard work, or courage, and ambition at all > costs, as defined for slytheirn, is evil. cunning is the bastard > brother of intelligence, complete with negative connotation. and of > course, there's always the wonderful spector of pureblooded bigotry. > > Slughorn was the disappointment of book 6. a non-evil slytherin, to > be sure. just a sycophantic, gluttonous, cowardly, discriminatory, > lump of a man. he comes through a bit in 7 at the end, but not enough > to raise him to the level of the other heroes in the story. Julie: It's too bad you don't care about Snape's story, because he did get what you wanted to see in Draco, a change of heart. (Yes, I hear the screams of protest now...down, I say! ;-) We see a character who allowed himself to be drawn in by the crowd around him, who ignored his one good friend and finally lost her so he could belong, who took on the Pureblood cause willingly (though his relationship with his wife-battering Muggle father at least gives us a sympathetic explanation for the ease with which he could reject Muggles and Muggleborns for Wizards and Purebloods). We also see a character who loved enough to reject that Pureblood ideology and the torture and killing that went with it, first for his love of one woman, but after years of association with the "Good" side who did in fact adopt the very ethics and ideology of those he'd joined initially for the single purpose of making up his unwitting betrayal of Lily by protecting her son. Hey, Snape is still a mean, bitter man who mistreats children on one level, but who protects them on another level (the dichotomy is significant), who saves those he can regardless of whether that saving in any way serves his initial purpose of protecting Harry for Lily--saving Lupin's life doesn't, mitigating the punishment of Ginny, Neville and Luna doesn't, even continuing with Dumbledore's plan to defeat Voldemort doesn't once he finds out that Harry must die to accomplish that defeat. Yet, Snape still plows forward, doing what is right over what is easy, even over what would satisfy his heartfelt atonement to Lily (keeping her son alive and safe). It can only be because he has had a change of heart, and a change in moral values. > > zgirnius: > > But then I got the story of Regulus Black, too, and it, too, was all > > about a Slytherin and his humanity. I mean, he could not bear that > > his House Elf was tortured, and when he went back to retrieve the > > Horcrux with Kreacher's help, he drank the goo himself, as he was not > > going to do that to Kreacher again! He chose to die in secret, > > without letting the story out, to protect the parents he loved from > > the wrath of Voldemort. I loved it, and was totally not expecting it. > > Prep0strus: > Regalus had a great story. seriously, very interesting, surprising, > cool. of course, it's only when voldy treated something HE cared > about with disdain that caused him to rebel. he was still a > pureblooded racist who had no problem allying himself with voldemorte > and performing horrible deeds to innocents before then. is regalus > the incarnation of evil? no. is his sacrifice for kreacher one of the > most touching examples of friendship, especially with a non-human, in > the books? yes. was he a good guy? probably not. Julie: But doesn't all change start that way, small and personal? No bigot suddenly jumps up and says, "Hey, I was wrong, so now I've done a complete about face! I love those (whoever he/she previously despised)." Small and personal is EXACTLY how Snape started out, doing it all for Lily, the woman he had betrayed and Voldemort had mistreated (if you can call murder such). He only cared about that one thing, atoning to Lily. But eventually he cared about saving those he could, whoever they were and whether he liked or loathed them. He adopted new principles. But it didn't happen immediately, and it didn't happen without some event upsetting his own narrow belief system, and I don't think it ever does. > zgirnius: > > And also Narcissa, of course. Though I should have been expecting her > > again, I suppose. She already showed her humanity in "Spinner's End", > > when she disobeyed the Dark Lord's orders to in an attempt to > > protect her son. In DH, she was no longer attempting to arrange a > > murder, she helped to keep Harry safe by lying to Voldemort that he > > was dead. > > > > Prep0strus: > It's nice she loves her son. Again, it doesn't make her any less of > an evil bigot. I don't understand why someone having ANY good trait > makes them entirely good. Evil people can love their families. > Someone doesn't have to be devoid of anything good inside them to be > predominantly bad. If her family weren't threatened, she'd still be > doing evil. And, even the best case scenario, with no voldemorte, she > just gets to live with her husband and son... she's just a rich > racist. That's slytherin. not all slytherins are actively evil. but > they're mostly reprehensible even when not being evil. Julie: Here I agree with you. But again, it *is* a start. Narcissa comes to see the real, vicious and uncaring Voldemort, the promoter of Pureblood supremacy, which does at least some damage to the whole concept when she considers what it did to her family. That doesn't mean she's going to do a complete about face either. And in reality, JKR did fail here in my opinion, giving us not a hint of how relations stood between Purebloods and the rest of the WW in the epilogue. As for being reprehensible without being evil, you probably know my feelings about that. No eleven year old child can be reprehensible let alone evil, though he could be heading that way if those skewed values continue to be actively encouraged or even simply not *discouraged* by the adults around him. Prep0strus: > there isn't a single slytherin that i'd want to spend more than 30 > seconds in the presence of. i don't think putting a good, likable > slytherin in the story simply slipped her mind. if she wanted us to > have one, we would have. since we don't... we see in the story what we > see. Your five characters do very little to make me think that > slytherin house should exist at all. the world would be better off > without them. Julie: Ouch! (See above). Really, we can see Slytherin House as an allegory for evil, as I think you once suggested. But then it is rather pointless to debate the relative worth of the individual characters at all. And since we are doing that, and treating them as real people (you don't want to spend 30 seconds with any of them--at least the ones we've met), then we can't just dismiss by saying the world is better off without them. Unless we want to support a WW version of Minority Report, where instead of sorting the undesirable quarter of students into Slytherin House they are sorted right into the Juvenile version of Azkaban, or perhaps to the feed factory where they are rendered harmless by being turned into green squares of food for the hippogriffs and thestrals... Still, I agree that there shouldn't be a Slytherin House. Children who have already been indoctrinated with bigotry and the worst values should be sorted with those who have the best values, not with more of the worst! At least then they'd have an honest chance to experience a different way, and to absorb better values. Julie, who would have been happy to see the Sorting Hat destroyed, and Hogwarts nineteen years later filled with unsorted students, and teachers who cared about the welfare of EVERY child, not just the ones in their own "house." From prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 04:40:41 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:40:41 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177559 > Julie: > I do see your point of view. Draco's story is one of the better > examples to me of how canon leaves open several avenues of > development, including the one that happened, and whether we > each like how the story developed in DH or didn't like it, > neither view is conflicted by canon (i.e., neither view reflects > that recently popularized term "wish fulfillment). I sit in > the middle on a lot of issues and this is one of them. I too > wanted to see Draco to recognize the evil inherent in his > pureblood ideology and turn unequivocally to the "good" side. > But there was really nothing in the canon depiction of Draco > that pointed to this result as the likely one. In fact there > is much against it. > > Which all goes to say that I saw Draco's journey differently > than you did, and I didn't see Draco as lazy or lacking in > motivation or even as truly cowardly (despite moments of such > that were for me mitigated by his concern for his family). > Nor did I see his journey as pointless. And while like all of > us I would have liked to see a Draco more like the one I > imagined before the release of DH, on this issue JKR did not > in any way forshadow such a Draco. We didn't all get what we > wanted with Draco, but she didn't cheat him, IMO. > Prep0strus: I think, for me, a lot is in in the expectations. After the strong presence of Draco in the 6th book, as well as (what I surmised as the motivations) the sacrifice of Dumbledore, I expected a lot out of Draco's story in the 7th book. I don't know exactly what I expected to be the outcome, but I thought it would have a very important place. And it didn't. And mostly, it left the image with me of Draco over the 7 books as meanspirited, cowardly, and cruel. The conclusion to his story was a letdown, and as a result, I think I am more inclined to see him in a negative light. While I can comprehend more positive interpretations of his actions, I don't see concrete evidence that he is on a truly better path, or he is truly a better person, than the mean and selfish bigoted boy we've known throughout the series. > > Julie: > It's too bad you don't care about Snape's story, because he > did get what you wanted to see in Draco, a change of heart. > (Yes, I hear the screams of protest now...down, I say! ;-) > We see a character who allowed himself to be drawn in by the > crowd around him, who ignored his one good friend and finally > lost her so he could belong, who took on the Pureblood cause > willingly (though his relationship with his wife-battering > Muggle father at least gives us a sympathetic explanation for > the ease with which he could reject Muggles and Muggleborns > for Wizards and Purebloods). We also see a character who loved > enough to reject that Pureblood ideology and the torture and > killing that went with it, first for his love of one woman, > but after years of association with the "Good" side who did > in fact adopt the very ethics and ideology of those he'd > joined initially for the single purpose of making up his > unwitting betrayal of Lily by protecting her son. > Prep0strus: The thing is, Snape's story ended before the series began for me. All he really did was die. ok, ok, i take it back. that's not entirely true. he showed courage he did not have to in becoming spy for the good side and all that. but really, the moment of change occurred before Harry was even born. And later on you refer to the first step characters take... but Snape only took that first step. or, at least, he didn't get very far down the path. sure, he turns from evil, but does it ever truly change HIM? years later he is as bitter, angry, lonely, and nasty as ever. Any interest shown in his character seems to be his backstory - what happened before. But what about what happens next? nothing happens next. snape is stagnant. many read a change in the last look into harry's eyes - many others don't. but aside from that... snape is snape. he goes nowhere in the story. i always assumed he was 'good', but the fact that he was also mean just made him annoying to me, not intriguing. part of it may even be unconscious - most assume snape has 'redeemed' himself. but has he truly gotten redemption? This is taking it to a story level, perhaps, but redeemed characters usually achieve some aspect of peace, some reward. and, in feeling like snape did not get that, perhaps somewhere i also feel he hasn't earned it. far be in from me to pity snape or feel for him... but could he be more tragic? dumbledore has stumbled, he is in many ways very slytherin like, but at his end... he is alone, but he has friends. he has people he loves and who love him. snape is truly alone - 'no one mourns the wicked'. even knowing he was not wicked, harry can appreciate his sacrifice, others can admire his bravery. but do they love him? does snape love them? snape has loved once. and it kept him through his life. but he never had another friend. he never got over his bitterness, never allowed himself to be less lonely, less harsh. and, in writing this, i feel for him more than i ever have before. but a lot of that is his choice. and, of course, jkr's choice - she made a choice to have him be redeemed, but never to earn love or happiness. i think an argument can be made that SHE doesn't think he's earned it. that he still is a representative of something that is more wrong than right. snape is... the lack of hope. there is no hope in severus snape, or for severus snape. his story doesn't touch me (despite how my writing may appear here), his character mostly disgusts me, because there is no hope. his redemption occurred long ago, and didn't make much of a dent in the awful person that he was. he dies, and... that's the end. (i don't even know why i'm thinking of it, but something makes me think of dobby's death - dying and putting an end to the whole idea of elf freedom. a messy c plotline jkr devoted a ton of time to, and then threw away, because with dobby's death, no other elf even cares to be free. dobby's death is the lack of hope for elves just as snape's death is the lack of hope for snape. ok, terrible comparison. but something about them connected in my head. maybe i'll figure it out later) this is why i wanted draco. snape was the past. it happened before, and went nowhere. draco is the NOW. the chance for redemption perhaps even before he performed true evil. the chance for HOPE in a character previously on a path of destruction. a chance to watch change and enlightenment and redemption unfold before us, and not just be told it happened a long time ago - with its net effects being pretty meager. a redeemed draco is a hope for an even better draco in the future, and a better future in the future. the way it turned out... it's just such a letdown. > > Julie: > But doesn't all change start that way, small and personal? > No bigot suddenly jumps up and says, "Hey, I was wrong, so > now I've done a complete about face! I love those (whoever > he/she previously despised)." Small and personal is EXACTLY how > Snape started out, doing it all for Lily, the woman he had > betrayed and Voldemort had mistreated (if you can call > murder such). He only cared about that one thing, atoning to > Lily. But eventually he cared about saving those he could, > whoever they were and whether he liked or loathed them. He > adopted new principles. But it didn't happen immediately, > and it didn't happen without some event upsetting his own > narrow belief system, and I don't think it ever does. > Prep0strus: You're right, except I don't think every small change becomes a large one - as I feel about snape. and more, in the context of my previous posting, it's that regalus is still unable to represent goodness or nobility in slytherin, because that change still is small. it's an interesting story, and certainly makes him more than any random death eater, but i know him still to be a bigot, still to have chosen evil, and while perhaps his future might have held something different had he lived, he still can't be held up as we know him to be a beacon of light and goodness in the house of slytherin. > > Julie: > Here I agree with you. But again, it *is* a start. Narcissa > comes to see the real, vicious and uncaring Voldemort, the > promoter of Pureblood supremacy, which does at least some > damage to the whole concept when she considers what it did > to her family. That doesn't mean she's going to do a complete > about face either. And in reality, JKR did fail here in my > opinion, giving us not a hint of how relations stood between > Purebloods and the rest of the WW in the epilogue. > > As for being reprehensible without being evil, you probably > know my feelings about that. No eleven year old child can > be reprehensible let alone evil, though he could be heading > that way if those skewed values continue to be actively > encouraged or even simply not *discouraged* by the adults > around him. > Prep0strus: Well, reprehensible without being evil can apply to adults then, can't it? because that's still how i see the adult slytherins. it's hard for me to argue about the children, because... well, personally i don't even believe in free will, but also lack the ability to act as if i don't believe in free will. so i don't know that any adult can be 'evil' either, but then i also don't know if any child is more or less responsible for their own actions (if i don't believe anyone is, how can someone be less so?). i think some actions can be fairly reprehensible, even in children. and by the end of the series, these 'children' are young adults. but the path draco was on, is on, can certainly be attributed to his parents, who i don't see changing their core values. > > Julie: > Ouch! (See above). Really, we can see Slytherin House as an > allegory for evil, as I think you once suggested. But then it > is rather pointless to debate the relative worth of the > individual characters at all. And since we are doing that, > and treating them as real people (you don't want to spend > 30 seconds with any of them--at least the ones we've met), > then we can't just dismiss by saying the world is better off > without them. Unless we want to support a WW version of > Minority Report, where instead of sorting the undesirable > quarter of students into Slytherin House they are sorted > right into the Juvenile version of Azkaban, or perhaps to > the feed factory where they are rendered harmless by being > turned into green squares of food for the hippogriffs and > thestrals... > > Still, I agree that there shouldn't be a Slytherin House. > Children who have already been indoctrinated with bigotry > and the worst values should be sorted with those who have > the best values, not with more of the worst! At least then > they'd have an honest chance to experience a different > way, and to absorb better values. > > Julie, who would have been happy to see the Sorting Hat > destroyed, and Hogwarts nineteen years later filled with > unsorted students, and teachers who cared about the welfare > of EVERY child, not just the ones in their own "house." > Prep0strus: Man, it goes so hard to break down the difference between the characters as people and the characters as literary devices when talking about this. I mean, they are characters who were given enough depth that they can be discussed, that i can know i would dislike them as people. on the other hand, part of the point of my earlier posting was that i think perhaps jkr, despite making them into decently rounded characters, never truly though of them as equals as people, but as representatives of something undesirable. and so, how do i answer that? i think, in her world, it is not slytherin house that MAKES them what they are, but simply a place where undesirable people end up. i think, based on the world we are given, it probably does make sense to simply eliminate anyone who would be a slytherin. i think the world would be better off without any individual slytherin you could name, and the world would be MUCH better off without the whole lot of them. but, of course, taking the idea to the real world doesn't work, because the real world doesn't work that way. probably their evil tendencies ARE reinforced in the house. likely there are many ways we could improve the way the ww works and the values instilled in the children. but my original point was that it is not any more wrong to look down on a slytherin than it is to look down on the idea of racism. and taking that further, it is no more wrong to eliminate the world of slytherins than to eliminate the world of racism. symbolically, i think jkr got mixed up, because she did inspire some sympathy and complexity in some slytherins. but by never giving a likable or admirable slytherin, by making almost every evil deed performed performed by a slytherin, by making the values described by slytherin to be distasteful values, and by not allowing true redemption or happiness or acceptance to come to any slytherin, she has created a far more powerful symbol of them being deservedly unworthy. i don't know if the mistake was not making them more equal or by not making them more one-sidedly evil, but something went amiss for me, and my eventual conclusion is that they represent what is wrong in humanity, not the opportunity for change. From sassynpink at AOL.COM Sun Sep 30 05:05:38 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (sassynpink at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 01:05:38 -0400 Subject: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <8C9D136AD4C9CC3-944-313F@WEBMAIL-MB01.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177560 > va32h: > But Harry *did* go looking for someone who (he thought) was > trying to kill him. Harry *did* go after Sirius. But Harry went after Sirius, not so much because he thought Sirius was trying to kill him, but because he believed Sirius had killed his parents. Jules From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Sep 30 07:29:14 2007 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2007 23:29:14 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: <8C9D136AD4C9CC3-944-313F@WEBMAIL-MB01.sysops.aol.com> References: <8C9D136AD4C9CC3-944-313F@WEBMAIL-MB01.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <856A9364-B73B-449B-9ADA-2726FD93D831@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 177561 On 2007, Sep 29, , at 21:05, sassynpink at AOL.COM wrote: >> va32h: > >> But Harry *did* go looking for someone who (he thought) was >> trying to kill him. Harry *did* go after Sirius. > > But Harry went after Sirius, not so much because he thought > Sirius was trying to kill him, but because he believed Sirius > had killed his parents. > > Jules I thought Harry went after a big black dog who was trying to get Ron. He had no idea at the time that Sirius was involved at all. When he was already in the presence of Sirius and Sirius had stolen Harry's wand, then Harry went after him. But I agree that he wasn't thinking about whether Sirius was trying to kill HIM, he was angry because Sirius had helped get his parents killed. Laura -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Sun Sep 30 13:02:49 2007 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:02:49 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/Squib!Draco/Marietta/FamilyLoyalty/Draco/Death/KeepSlyther Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177562 CathyD wrote in : << Perhaps the disappointed should start a new e-mail list so we can voice our own opinions without fear of someone rushing in to try to save us from ourselves. >> 'Disappointed' covers a lot of territory. Some people enjoyed the book despite being disappointed because they wanted Snape to live and finally have a happy life or they wanted Harry to marry Hermione instead of Ginny or they wanted to learn the details of The Prank. Some people found the camping section boring and were disappointed because that part wasn't entertaining to them. 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. I probably am a bad person, as I read HP for entertainment rather than for moral instruction, and I am interested in the characters, and the world that Rowling invented, and it doesn't matter much to me if the scheme is implausible, I never quite understood the conspiracy, the plot only works because of many convenient co-incidences, and there isn't a chapter about the funeral honoring those who died on the good side. Laura wrote in : << If you don't think you've ever done anything bad or shameful, you'd have nothing to fear from Azkaban. If you're convinced that might is right, and you've had might behind you and will again, you'd have nothing to fear from Azkaban. >> I don't agree. I'm sure Dementors can suck the happiness out of anyone who has any happiness. They should be able to suck out Bellatrix's happy thoughts, which presumably would be that she was loyal to LV, that LV will return, and when he returns he will reward her. Sirius said "I think the only reason I never lost my mind is that I knew I was innocent. That wasn't a happy thought, so the dementors couldn't suck it out of me... but it kept me sane and knowing who I am... " So I guess it was the UNhappy thought that she had failed and maybe LV would never return that kept Bellatrix sane. Potioncat wrote in : << How would Narcissa have reacted if Draco had been a Squib? >> Well, Lucius and Narcissa wouldn't have suspected for a while, and then they'd be in denial. Besides providing toddler Draco with the luxuries he deserves as the Malfoy heir, they'd buy him a lot of toys that are supposed to stimulate his magic powers. Maybe the toy broomstick only works for riders who have innate magic power, for example. I don't think they'd do things so crude as dropping him out of a window. I figure they'd start coming out of denial when he was 4 or 5, and start taking him to medimagical specialists in search of a cure. I think that soon Lucius would start pressuring Narcissa to have another baby, because he needs a wizard heir. I don't know whether Narcissa wants another child (maybe she wants a girl, to have one of each) or would she resist having another child because it was intended (by Lucius) as attack on her Draco's position. I don't know if medimagical specialists can be sure which child is a Squib or nobody can be certain until it's time for the Hogwarts Letter that doesn't come. If Squibism can be detected early, it might be the Pureblood tradition to choose some Muggles to adopt the little Squib (and raise him as a Muggle) while putting out a report that their child had died of some disease. (Perhaps the origin of the changeling theory.) Lucius would certainly want to do that, while Narcissa would DEMAND to KEEP her BABY!! If no one knows until the child is 11, then all the gossipmongers will know that the child is a Squib, so pretending he just died won't avoid the disgrace to the family, so maybe the pureblood tradition would go along with Narcissa's preference to keep him at home and treat him like a pet or an invalid, or locked in the attic. I like to think that *Lucius* would want to really kill him, so as not to have an unworthy heir. I like to think that the only people Lucius loves are himself and Narcissa. Pippin wrote in : << But any society which depends on bonds of mutual trust and obligation is going to see treachery as a threat not to the individual but to the fabric of society itself. Even without scars, Marietta would not find it easy to ever gain the trust of anyone who knew what she'd done, and in a society that depends on trust she would be crippled. The scars are a way to visualize that. >> 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, and they would think Marietta was a good person and not object to her marrying into their family and family business. As for purely business dealings with her, just make sure that the deal is good for her family. It seems there are a few people in the wizarding world who think that loyalty to the Ministry of Magic is more important than loyalty to the DA, and such people also would approve of Marietta. I think there could only be a few wizards of that opinion, as the wizarding world is so anarchic, and one would *hope* that the recent experience of the Ministry having been taken over by Voldemort would shake their certainty. But there certainly seem to be a lot of people in America who seem to believe that our government is always right, regardless how much they complain about taxes and politicians and bureaucrats and say that the government does wrong thing. One example was in a recent debate about a new law that police must record all interrogations and confessions in cases of serious or violent crimes. So that the DA can play the tape for the jury to hear that the suspect really did confess and the police hadn't beaten him and held a gun to his head and told him they'd kill him if he didn't confess. The 'con' speaker said "We have to trust the police." Even Rafael Perez. 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. >> 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. The real issue of discussion is, at what point does loyalty to family get trumped? Of course Draco wants to keep his beloved father alive and out of Azkaban, but suppose sometime after LV's final fall, Lucius kills a couple of people for revenge or business advantage or whatever. Should Draco help him conceal the evidence and concoct a false alibi, maybe help frame some innocent person, or merely help him flee the country before trial? Suppose Draco helps conceal the evidence and Lucius then orders Draco to help him kill a witness against him. Should Draco help his father commit this additional murder out of family loyalty? Adam Prep0sterous wrote in : << But without a subversive reading that makes down up, light dark, good bad, and chocolate ice cream taste like Brussels sprouts, how does one identify with Draco without feeling bad about the person that they are? At his best, he's a misguided little spoiled twit who likes to have fun at the expense of others. At his worst, he's a genocidal monster in the making. I don't think a funny comeback or two makes up for that. >> I don't identify with Draco, but if I were a girl at his school, I'd have a crush on him: he's good-looking, stylish, funny, intelligent enough to be a good student with good marks, and I must confess that I find that wealth and a posh accent are attractive features. Having a crush on him, I'd either be in denial about his bloodism and genocidism or believe that he would learn better by associating with me and my high morals. As an adult reader, I have a similar attitude: he's an attractive character and I want him to reform and be redeemed. Lizzyben wrote in : << The worst, worst contradiction was Harry's cheering squad that assured him "Dying doesn't hurt a bit, It's quicker & easier than falling asleep!" right after Harry witnessed Snape's painful, long, horrible death. Easy platitudes are contradicted by the harsh reality. >> James and Lily were killed by Avada Kedavra. Sirius was killed either by Avada Kedavra or by falling through the Veil. Those are what we call a painless death, as the process of being killed doesn't hurt. Harry expected LV to use AK on him, as LV is awfully predictable that way. (If LV had used a dagger instead, would that have killed the soul bit in Harry's scar?) Severus's painful death was painful because he was bitten and venomed and thought he had failed, not because it was death. Supposing that instead of a vial to hold his memories, Hermione had produced a antidote from her super purse and cured him, so he would stay alive. That wouldn't make the pain not have happened. We know about the pain of being bitten and venomed from people to whom it happened but they survived to tell about it. We don't know whether the dying itself (as distinct from the wound or poison or heart attack or whatever that killed) hurts because no one has ever come back and told us (in RL). Actually, now that you mention it, Harry could have questioned ghosts instead of these miraculous revenants, because ghosts DID die, they just didn't 'go on'. Anyway, I have been with cats while they died, and while the weakening can take a while, the instant in which the soul leaves the body (the DEATH itself) is faster than the blink of an eye. I feel like it's a paradox that such a BIG thing happens too quickly to see it. I suppose the existence of those miraculous revenants means that there is an afterlife in the Potterverse where individual identity is retained and not reincarnation, because what would happen to the body of the person's current incarnation if the person left it to take care of a previous incarnation's business? (I wrote the above BEFORE I read Pippin's ) Speaking of ghosts, Pippin wrote in : << So, from NHN's point-of-view he stayed behind, but from his soul's point of view, it left a copy of its frightened self and went on. >> If ghosts are, as Snape taught, the imprint of departed souls, I guess the souls under discussion are still in the waiting room (what Harry saw as King's Cross). I guess the ghost happened when the soul TRIED to go back to life (as Harry did successfully). Because if it were literally an imprint, it would have nothing to do with the person's choice, only with how big an *impression* the person had made in life, especially while dying (in the non-instantaneous sense). 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. Katie wrote in : << However, it's not really reasonable to welcome all those dark wizards into a school with normal people and put them in a house that will only encourage those dark tendencies. (snip) I don't understand why Hogwarts just didn't get rid of Slytherin House after Salazar Slytherin split. >> I think that the wizards generally regard the difference between Dark Magic and Light Magic the way Muggles regard the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Some people really care about it and can't understand how there can be people so wrong-headed as to agree with the other side, but both sides have those loyalists. In real life, there aren't so many places where the electorate would allow the school board to require a course in All (Democrats/Repubicans) Are Evil and then expel the students who didn't agree. Similarly, if a Headmaster ordered that all students be taught that Dark Magic is bad, wicked, evil, uncool, don't do it, or that Dark magic is a perfectly useful tool that only silly fanatics want to ban, a lot of parents and citizens would denounce him for trying to brainwash their children into disagreeing with the parents' beliefs. I am saying that Slytherin House cannot be abolished because it has too many supporters among the electorate. I admit there was no electorate when three Founders ran the school after Salazar split. I suppose they believed they couldn't abolish Slytherin House for some magical reason, such as all four Founders had made a 'binding magical contract' that none of their Houses would be eliminated, or that Salazar had left a powerful curse on anyone who tried to abolish Slytherin House. From terrianking at aol.com Sun Sep 30 14:15:35 2007 From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 10:15:35 EDT Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177563 prep0strus writes: symbolically, i think jkr got mixed up, because she did inspire some sympathy and complexity in some slytherins. but by never giving a likable or admirable slytherin, by making almost every evil deed performed performed by a slytherin, by making the values described by slytherin to be distasteful values, and by not allowing true redemption or happiness or acceptance to come to any slytherin, she has created a far more powerful symbol of them being deservedly unworthy. i don't know if the mistake was not making them more equal or by not making them more one-sidedly evil, but something went amiss for me, and my eventual conclusion is that they represent what is wrong in humanity, not the opportunity for change. Robert: I have to come out of lurkdom to disagree here. I believe it was stated that Sirius was the first Black not assigned to the house of Slytherin when he attended Hogwarts. That would mean all of his cousins WERE - including Andromeda. We hear her mentioned throughout the last books of the series as the Black sister who was shunned by the family for marrying a Muggle born, and having a long and happy marriage, as well as a daughter who became an auror. She was the example that not all Slytherins are bad and some can join the adult WW and choose their own path in life after being Slytherins in school. Bella tells Voldemort that she had no contact with Andromeda AFTER she married the Muggle-born. Before that particular offense they were on good terms. Also it doesn't state whether she became Sirius' favorite cousin before or after attending Hogwarts. Maybe the example wasn't Draco, but does that have to mean no other example is acceptable? For what it's worth, another lurker's opinion to chew up and spit out...... Robert From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 30 14:40:54 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:40:54 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177564 Robert: > > > I have to come out of lurkdom to disagree here. I believe it was stated that Sirius was the first Black not assigned to the house of Slytherin when he attended Hogwarts. That would mean all of his cousins WERE - including Andromeda. We hear her mentioned throughout the last books of the series as the Black sister who was shunned by the family for marrying a Muggle born, and having a long and happy marriage, as well as a daughter who became an auror. She was the example that not all Slytherins are bad and some can join the adult WW and choose their own path in life after being Slytherins in school. Bella tells Voldemort that she had no contact with Andromeda AFTER she married the Muggle-born. Before that particular offense they were on good terms. Also it doesn't state whether she became Sirius' favorite cousin before or after attending Hogwarts. Maybe the example wasn't Draco, but does that have to mean no other example is acceptable? Magpie: There are no other examples anyway. Andromeda isn't a character in the story. We can maybe infer that she was Slytherin based on what Sirius said, but we don't know anything about what she was like. So my short answer is no, characters who appear in one scene with two lines can't be an example of something like this. Had we known her she might have been fairly unlikable too (I think the one thing we hear about her is that she speaks haughtily or something). But the very fact we have to look outside the many Slytherins we have seems imo to back up Adam's impression. As, imo, do ideas like "but JKR didn't flat out say in canon that ALL the DEs were Slytherins" or "there are lots of Slytherins we don't know and they might be better." With all the Slytherins JKR chose to show, they all had serious problems. And I have the same impression as Adam that Draco seems especially important in this way. Dumbledore's saving of him in HBP did seem to set up to me that this would show hope--that soembody on the wrong path could actually become a better person, could change his views believably and go on to live a life. Instead Draco's story seemed to change him, yes, but quite deliberately limit that change to something less significant. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 14:51:06 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:51:06 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177565 > Magpie: > There are no other examples anyway. Andromeda isn't a character in > the story. We can maybe infer that she was Slytherin based on what > Sirius said, but we don't know anything about what she was like. > > So my short answer is no, characters who appear in one scene with two > lines can't be an example of something like this. Had we known her > she might have been fairly unlikable too (I think the one thing we > hear about her is that she speaks haughtily or something). But the > very fact we have to look outside the many Slytherins we have seems > imo to back up Adam's impression. Alla: I do not know about you, but **I** know enough about Andromeda to convince me that she is one of the examples of good Slytherins. For the secondary character of course. She, the daughter of pureblood family, child in Slytherin ( I agree with Robert, I never doubted that it means that all Sirius cousins were in Slytherins for same reason as he, IMO of course) left home and married muggleborn. This action tells me a lot about Andromeda right there. That she puts love ahead of any pureblood values. And she brought up Tonks. Seems to me that mother who brought up daughter like that cannot be bad as a person either. JMO< Alla From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 30 15:08:03 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:08:03 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177567 > Alla: > > I do not know about you, but **I** know enough about Andromeda to > convince me that she is one of the examples of good Slytherins. For > the secondary character of course. > > She, the daughter of pureblood family, child in Slytherin ( I agree > with Robert, I never doubted that it means that all Sirius cousins > were in Slytherins for same reason as he, IMO of course) left home > and married muggleborn. > > This action tells me a lot about Andromeda right there. That she > puts love ahead of any pureblood values. > > And she brought up Tonks. Seems to me that mother who brought up > daughter like that cannot be bad as a person either. Magpie: Sorry, hit send too soon. That's the great thing about characters you write yourself. They can be whatever you imagine them to be. To me it's a bit of a disappointment that she didn't choose to take the one Slytherin characters of this generation and show him learning to perhaps reject Pureblood values (he puts love ahead of them, presumably, since his love for his family seems to be his defining trait). Draco no longer seems so driven by Pureblood values in HBP. He just doesn't cross over that last Slytherin hump. Lots of Slytherins put love over Pureblood values. They do crazy things for love. They seem to be able to do this without necessarily getting to the level of good people. And of course the other problem is that if they get too far away from this stuff, they get rejected by their house. It's like using Dobby as an example for House Elves wanting their freedom. Yeah, he's an example of one who did, but he really is some sort of oddity in the end and not the way of the future as far as we see. Andromeda's rejected; Snape keeps his feelings secret. Slughorn is the one example of a "good-ish" Slytherin who remains a Slytherin, but he's not very admirable at all. Andromeda could have been a nasty Slytherin who turned out to have a heart of gold different from any other Slytherin we've seen before, or even a flawed person who was still just as good as other heroes. Or she could have been somebody thoroughly unlikable who had a passion that ruled her and she was willing to leave her family over it while still never being somebody Harry would actually like the way he likes her husband and daughter right off. And that's assuming she's Slytherin based on Sirius' comment. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 15:19:34 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:19:34 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177568 > Magpie: > Sorry, hit send too soon. > > That's the great thing about characters you write yourself. They can > be whatever you imagine them to be. > > To me it's a bit of a disappointment that she didn't choose to take > the one Slytherin characters of this generation and show him learning > to perhaps reject Pureblood values (he puts love ahead of them, > presumably, since his love for his family seems to be his defining > trait). Draco no longer seems so driven by Pureblood values in HBP. > He just doesn't cross over that last Slytherin hump. > > Lots of Slytherins put love over Pureblood values. They do crazy > things for love. They seem to be able to do this without necessarily > getting to the level of good people. And of course the other problem > is that if they get too far away from this stuff, they get rejected > by their house. It's like using Dobby as an example for House Elves > wanting their freedom. Yeah, he's an example of one who did, but he > really is some sort of oddity in the end and not the way of the > future as far as we see. Andromeda's rejected; Snape keeps his > feelings secret. Slughorn is the one example of a "good-ish" > Slytherin who remains a Slytherin, but he's not very admirable at all. > > Andromeda could have been a nasty Slytherin who turned out to have a > heart of gold different from any other Slytherin we've seen before, > or even a flawed person who was still just as good as other heroes. > Or she could have been somebody thoroughly unlikable who had a > passion that ruled her and she was willing to leave her family over > it while still never being somebody Harry would actually like the way > he likes her husband and daughter right off. And that's assuming > she's Slytherin based on Sirius' comment. Alla: So, tell me then what part of Andromeda did I write myself? Or are you saying that we are not even allowed to make first line inferences based on canon now? I said that she put love first over pureblood values. You are saying that she did not love Tad and married him for some other reason? Sorry, but that inference seem less reasonable to me. Because young pureblooded girl who seemed to hear all her life that purebloods rule ( I mean, it IS reasonable inference based on what we know about Black family, no?) must have had strong passion to abandon all that, no? Blacks are rich, so I dounbt she married Tad for money or something. Tonks in OOP makes no mention that her parents are having problems or something, so I think their marriage is pretty okay. I mean if you want to disregard my inference that Andromeda must be a good person because Tonks seems a sweet one to me, okay. Although then I would say that the argument should work both ways and if Draco is so bad because he was indoctrinated by his parents values, I would say that it works in reverse too and if child has pretty good values, we can reasonably assume that his parents values are pretty good. Oh, and no I do not see how plenty of Slytherins put love over pureblood values. Snape seemed to reject the friendship of muggleborn over his DE friends and it took him a long time to figure out his priorities. We have some of them doing it and I think it meant to show their good side. So, in short I base my respect for Andromeda on what she **did** in canon and what kind of kid she has, yes ( but that is of course IMO). That's it, but to me it is a plenty. I do not give my respect to Narcissa and Lucius for how they brought up Draco for example but I certainly applaud Molly and Arthur for their kids. IMO, Alla From issyippon at hotmail.com Sun Sep 30 15:07:32 2007 From: issyippon at hotmail.com (issybizz) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:07:32 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177569 > prep0strus writes: > > symbolically, i think jkr got mixed up, because she did inspire some sympathy and complexity in some slytherins. but by never giving a likable or admirable slytherin, by making almost every evil deed performed performed by a slytherin, by making the values described by > slytherin to be distasteful values, and by not allowing true redemption or happiness or acceptance to come to any slytherin, she has created a far more powerful symbol of them being deservedly unworthy. i don't know if the mistake was not making them more equal or by not making them more one-sidedly evil, but something went amiss > for me, and my eventual conclusion is that they represent what is wrong in humanity, not the opportunity for change. > > I completely agree here and think the fundamental mistake that JKR had made is that she never redeems the Slytherins, she shows no hope for them and for this reason I think everything that Harry Potter has done to battle Voldemort was a waste! The Slytherins are still left in a bad light; the cycle has not been broken for them. This means that future Slytherins are still going to turn into dark and power hungry wizards/witches and you would expect to see more Voldemorts in their future. However, there will be no horcruxes to save the others, when these wizards turn because the plan for the Elder Wand will mean it will be useless and all they will have is what Harry had without the horcruxes - nothing and no chance of winning. I am deeply disappointed by the unfair and down right prejudice JKR has shown towards the Slytherins in the last book at Hogwards, they played no part on the good side. issybizz From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Sep 30 15:54:11 2007 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:54:11 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177570 > Alla: > > So, tell me then what part of Andromeda did I write myself? Or are > you saying that we are not even allowed to make first line > inferences based on canon now? Magpie: Andromeda doesn't appear onstage except for in one scene. We have a series of facts about her that you did not make up, from there we can imagine different actual characters and stories as to how she got there. The only thing I remember of her description was that she looked like Bellatrix and did she speak in a haughty way? Perhaps Tonks takes more after her father in that respect. Alla: > > I said that she put love first over pureblood values. You are saying > that she did not love Tad and married him for some other reason? Magpie: No, I said other Slytherins put love over Pureblood values too and that those are included in the Slytherins Adam described as still being not admirable as people. Andromeda might very well have rejected all Pureblood values, or she might still be prejudiced but make allowances for Ted and Tonks, or no longer much support Pureblood values but still be an unlikable person. Or she could be a warm-hearted person behind the haughty exterior. She's just not a character JKR wrote as part of the Harry Potter series--we know more about the personalities of Ted and Tonks. We can imagine tons of stuff about Andromeda since she doesn't appear on the page much. (I've actually read fanfics that featured her before DH and I notice that authors tended to write her very differently even at first glance than the way JKR wrote her.) *That* is what makes her a weak example for me. I have no problem believing Slytherins can be good. I've believed it since PS/SS. Anyone can be good imo. But Good Slytherins who show a certain kind of hope for the house just seem completely not part of this story. I'm not denying the facts we do know about Andromeda, that she married a Muggleborn and gave up her ties to her family for it. I'm saying that's all I know about her and admirable as thoes things may be, since she's not an actual character in the story she doesn't much figure into the meaning of it. Snape did very admirable things for the side of good too. They dumped those zeros and got themselves heroes.:-) Alla: > Oh, and no I do not see how plenty of Slytherins put love over > pureblood values. > > Snape seemed to reject the friendship of muggleborn over his DE > friends and it took him a long time to figure out his priorities. Magpie: Regardless, in the end Snape's life was guided for his love for Lily and that led him to fight against Pureblood values. That it took him a while to figure out his priorities doesn't change is priorities. Anyway, my main point isn't to figure what Adromeda was or wasn't like because as this conversation proves, we're just inferring and imagining stuff based on the facts we know and other characters because she's not on the page. The fact that she's not on the page being my main point. "Slytherin Not Appearing In This Book" seems like a weak argument. I doubt most readers even remember the woman exists much less consider her a symbol of anything. Looking to her for anything seems like scraping the bottle of the barrel and the obvious joke response is to notice how just not appearing immediately gives you a leg up on the others. From terrianking at aol.com Sun Sep 30 16:03:40 2007 From: terrianking at aol.com (terrianking at aol.com) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:03:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177571 Magpie: Sorry, hit send too soon. That's the great thing about characters you write yourself. They can be whatever you imagine them to be. To me it's a bit of a disappointment that she didn't choose to take the one Slytherin characters of this generation and show him learning to perhaps reject Pureblood values (he puts love ahead of them, presumably, since his love for his family seems to be his defining trait). Draco no longer seems so driven by Pureblood values in HBP. He just doesn't cross over that last Slytherin hump. Lots of Slytherins put love over Pureblood values. They do crazy things for love. They seem to be able to do this without necessarily getting to the level of good people. And of course the other problem is that if they get too far away from this stuff, they get rejected by their house. It's like using Dobby as an example for House Elves wanting their freedom. Yeah, he's an example of one who did, but he really is some sort of oddity in the end and not the way of the future as far as we see. Andromeda's rejected; Snape keeps his feelings secret. Slughorn is the one example of a "good-ish" Slytherin who remains a Slytherin, but he's not very admirable at all. Andromeda could have been a nasty Slytherin who turned out to have a heart of gold different from any other Slytherin we've seen before, or even a flawed person who was still just as good as other heroes. Or she could have been somebody thoroughly unlikable who had a passion that ruled her and she was willing to leave her family over it while still never being somebody Harry would actually like the way he likes her husband and daughter right off. And that's assuming she's Slytherin based on Sirius' comment. -m Robert: I didn't make up the character of Andromeda. All of her traits are described on the pages of the books, which I did not write. Wish I did, but I didn't. As for posting, I was offering one example where it was inferred none were given. But, you are right, characters you create yourself can be and do anything you wish, including "lots of Slytherins." Andromeda may not be a perfect woman. It doesn't say she is in the books. She and Narcissa seem to share more traits than she and Bellatrix. She and Narcissa both value their families over Voldemort, but the difference is that Andromeda chose to chuck pureblood ideology out the window as far as her future life went. Secondary, or character from the back row or not, she is an example of a Slytherin who chose to not follow her family's beliefs after leaving school. A much more viable character than lots of Slytherins, IMO. Personally, I like Draco the way he is. Despite everything, all the humiliation and torture his family went through, he has not wavered from his personal beliefs. He has seen Voldemort's version up close and personal but he still feels what he has always believed is still the right way for the WW to be going. He is a man of conviction. He isn't someone who can be led by what's the latest "in" thing. Just because he stands by his upbringing and DOESN'T make the choices Andromeda made, doesn't mean he is lost forever. In my opinion he is a great bad guy and I'd rather see him remain a Slytherin than to see him turn into just another convert who has seen the error of his ways. That would not be Draco as described in the books. That would be a born again Draco and I don't even want to think beyond that. Robert From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Sun Sep 30 16:15:34 2007 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:15:34 -0000 Subject: Merope (Was: Dumbledore's Plan/Deaths in DH/Catharsis) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177572 > > Carol responds: > > > > That's a problem for me. How did Merope learn to read or make a love > > potion? > > Pippin: > I wouldn't assume she learned how from a book. > She must have had a mother once. Love potions being a village > witch's stock in trade, perhaps Mrs. Gaunt was selling them to > Muggles. It could be the Ministry found out, and put a stop to it, > but Merope remembered enough of her mother's > recipe to attempt it herself when she was desperate enough. Aussie now: Did the Gaunts even trust other wizarding communities? Once Slytherin split from Ravenclaw, Hufflepuff and especially, Godric's school, the orderly Wizarding communities would have been shunned, and related to as seldom as possible. The treatment of the Ministry of Magic official was good evidence of that. And Merope could have sold the locket anywhere, but went to Nocturn Alley since it was safely away from where her dad or brother could trace her, Tom showed a creative streak with his Dark Arts. I agree Merope's mother taught her some things, but Molovo may not have seen any point in getting a wand for his magically deficient daughter. Hogwarts? The gaunts would never go to that school until blood was pure and lessons were given in Parseltongue From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Sep 30 16:57:14 2007 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 30 Sep 2007 16:57:14 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 9/30/2007, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1191171434.9.28744.m54@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177573 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday September 30, 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 prep0strus at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 17:17:01 2007 From: prep0strus at yahoo.com (prep0strus) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 17:17:01 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177574 > Robert: > > > I didn't make up the character of Andromeda. All of her traits are described on the pages of the books, which I did not write. Wish I did, but I didn't. As for posting, I was offering one example where it was inferred none were given. But, you are right, characters you create yourself can be and do anything you wish, including "lots of Slytherins." Andromeda may not be a perfect woman. It doesn't say she is in the books. She and Narcissa seem to share more traits than she and Bellatrix. She and Narcissa both value their families over Voldemort, but the difference is that Andromeda chose to chuck pureblood ideology out the window as far as her future life went. Secondary, or character from the back row or not, she is an example of a Slytherin who chose to not follow her family's beliefs after leaving school. A much more viable character than lots of Slytherins, IMO. > Prep0strus: But... how can this be THE example? JKR never even comes out and says she is slytherin. I mean, we can assume it, but so many people consider things characters have 'said' to be exaggerations (like hagrid's, 'not a single death eater wasn't from slytherin', which by the way way, i'm not sure ISN'T true - was pettigrew ever defined as a true death eater? many serve who don't get that honor. i guess karakoff, but still, among graduates of hogwarts...) that how do we even know it for a complete fact? we don't. and then we get a couple minutes with someone who adds very little to the story. my personal opinion? she was probably slytherin. probably arrogant and a little racist as a child. probably a nice person and a good parent and grandparent as an adult. none of that is fact, but i think it's probably true. but the point is that we had to go that far to find a slytherin who is an acceptable human being. we had to first assume she is slytherin, which she might not be. then we have to assume her character - which also might not be so great. that's the point other posters were making - she COULD be so many other things. if we didn't know slughorn as we did, he might just be a jolly professor who wasn't a death eater - yay! Great guy! but we know him a little deeper, and know him to be a selfish, weak man who divides and discriminates against children and seems to only care about them for his own gain. a very flawed man, who, while not evil, is certainly nothing to aspire to or admire. if JKR wanted us to think of Slytherin as equal, she wouldn't have given us one maybe-slytherin who seems likely-nice in the almost no page time we get with her. It's not much of an example. Andromeda as the symbol of all that is right with Slytherin? That they are good and decent and full equals in society? If it works for you, run with it, but for me, that's a pretty big pill to swallow. Robert: > Personally, I like Draco the way he is. Despite everything, all the > humiliation and torture his family went through, he has not wavered from his personal beliefs. He has seen Voldemort's version up close and personal but he still feels what he has always believed is still the right way for the WW to be going. He is a man of conviction. He isn't someone who can be led by what's the latest "in" thing. Just because he stands by his upbringing and DOESN'T make the choices Andromeda made, doesn't mean he is lost forever. In my opinion he is a great bad guy and I'd rather see him remain a Slytherin than to see him turn into just another convert who has seen the error of his ways. That would not be Draco as described in the books. That would be a born again Draco and I don't even want to think beyond that. > > Robert > Prep0strus: Again, it's how you read it. I don't know that he hasn't wavered. I don't know that he has. I don't think JKR gave us nearly enough in DH for me to make that determination. I don't think he's a man of conviction at ALL - i think he's a man of expedience, and fear, and finding a way to come out of it ok. i don't think he's a great bad guy, and i don't think he's a good good guy. i think he's a pathetic mush, but more, i think he's an abandoned storyline. I don't think what we saw of him in DH gives us the ability to say anything for certain when it comes to draco, and while sometimes ambiguity is a good thing... in this case, i don't think it is. CathyD: I don't identify with Draco, but if I were a girl at his school, I'd have a crush on him: he's good-looking, stylish, funny, intelligent enough to be a good student with good marks, and I must confess that I find that wealth and a posh accent are attractive features. Having a crush on him, I'd either be in denial about his bloodism and genocidism or believe that he would learn better by associating with me and my high morals. As an adult reader, I have a similar attitude: he's an attractive character and I want him to reform and be redeemed. Prep0strus: Man, this may be off topic and personal rather than canon based analysis, but... argh. All his humor comes from putting down others he's the leader of a pathetic mini-gang of idiot. Whether or not you think he might 'get better', you'd think that the bloodism an genocidism might be a bigger red flag. It's not a problem with draco, or with the ww, or th harry potter series... it's a problem with girls! He doesn't even make that convincing of a 'bad boy' to me, because he always comes off as so pathetic, but hey... rich arrogant jerk? You're right (no sarcasm). why WASN'T he getting more girls at hogwarts? (again, no sarcasm) Adam (Prep0strus), who's not surprised to be single when this is the standard so many girls look for From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 18:23:28 2007 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:23:28 -0000 Subject: HatingDH/Dementors/...Draco/.../KeepSlytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177575 --- wrote: > > CathyD wrote in > : > > << Perhaps the disappointed should start a new e-mail > list so we can voice our own opinions without fear of > someone rushing in to try to save us from ourselves. > >> > Catlady: > > 'Disappointed' covers a lot of territory. Some people > enjoyed the book despite being disappointed ... > > Some people appear to be expressing an opinion that > the book is not merely not enjoyable to them, but > that it is downright evil. ... > bboyminn: Therein lies the real problems. In another group, I frequently find myself defending the books 'Eragon/ Eldest' which I liked very much. Now I can handle people saying they don't like it. Not everybody likes everything. But some people attack it with such venom and vitriol that is seems unnaturally excessive, and that is when I feel the need to step in and defend. They same is true of this group and these books. When people express such extreme opinions that the degree and the tone have a creeping unnaturalness about them. I have to question those opinions. In addition, when some people hold opinion that are so counter to the obvious read of the story, I feel uneasy. For example, to say that Harry is a beast and Draco is a downtrodden sweetie-pie, goes against the obvious in the extreme. Now I can understand debating the counterpoint. To try to show things from Draco's side, I can even do that. Even I, a great Harry fan, can find and hold sympathy and understanding for Draco and Slytherins. But some opinions are so extreme as to be unfathomable, at least my me. So, certainly, if you are disappointed, then be disappointed. That is a fair response. Certainly, debate and discuss the positive aspects of negative characters. But do try to keep it in perspective. Painting Slytherins as poor put-upon saints and Gryffindor as oppressive demons, in my opinion, is far out of perspective. My point is, I don't think anyone has a problem with negative or disappointed reactions, but when those reaction reach an unfathomable extreme, then it becomes ...well... unfathomable. > ...edited... > > Katie wrote in > : > > << However, it's not really reasonable to welcome all > those dark wizards into a school with normal people > and put them in a house that will only encourage those > dark tendencies. (snip) I don't understand why > Hogwarts just didn't get rid of Slytherin House after > Salazar Slytherin split. >> > Catlady: > > I think that the wizards generally regard the > difference between Dark Magic and Light Magic the way > Muggles regard the difference between Democrats and > Republicans. ... > > I admit there was no electorate when three Founders > ran the school after Salazar split. I suppose they > believed they couldn't abolish Slytherin House for > some magical reason, ... > 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. The Sorting Hat sees potential, and the potential to be cunning and ambitious is not a negative thing. True most 'bad people' tend to be cunning and ambitious, but not all cunning ambitious people are bad. We assume most brave people are good, but we see from Peter's unique brand of courage, that this is an attribute that can manifest itself in negative ways. I see this as true of all the Houses. So, if we assume we keep the kids but lose the House, how does that change anything? Those cunning ambitious kids are still there, and they are likely to gravitate together regardless of which House they are in. This happens on every school campus in the world; birds of a feather, flock together. So, my point is, I see no point in breaking a thousand years of tradition because some people are determined to assign universally negative attributes to a particular group of people. Slytherins have their problems, but it is up to them to fix the public's perception of themselves. 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. I suspect more likely they become good businessmen and entrepreneur. Again, in my view, it takes a pretty extreme view to think that Slytherin should be eliminated. Sorry, got to run. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 19:13:27 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:13:27 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177576 Alla wrote: > > > > I do not know about you, but **I** know enough about Andromeda to convince me that she is one of the examples of good Slytherins. For the secondary character of course. > > > > She, the daughter of pureblood family, child in Slytherin ( I agree with Robert, I never doubted that it means that all Sirius cousins were in Slytherins for same reason as he, IMO of course) left home and married muggleborn. > > > > This action tells me a lot about Andromeda right there. That she puts love ahead of any pureblood values. > > > > And she brought up Tonks. Seems to me that mother who brought up daughter like that cannot be bad as a person either. > > Magpie: > Sorry, hit send too soon. > > That's the great thing about characters you write yourself. They can be whatever you imagine them to be. > > Andromeda could have been a nasty Slytherin who turned out to have a heart of gold different from any other Slytherin we've seen before, or even a flawed person who was still just as good as other heroes. Or she could have been somebody thoroughly unlikable who had a passion that ruled her and she was willing to leave her family over it while still never being somebody Harry would actually like the way he likes her husband and daughter right off. 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. We know from OoP that she married a Muggle-born, Ted Tonks, and was burned off the family tapestry for doing so, that she was Sirius's favorite cousin (therefore, probably, more likeable than Narcissa and Bellatrix and certainly not so firmly entrenched in her prejudice against Muggle-borns). We know that she was good at what Tonks calls "householdy spells"--in contrast to her husband, who's "a right old slob." Okay, not much to go on, except that Andromeda was willing to defy her family and their values by becoming what they would consider a "blood traitor" and that, like Molly (and Petunia!), she seems to be the domestic type. Still, defying your family for love takes courage, so even without knowing her, we can assign to her, tentatively, the two virtues JKR prizes most highly, love and courage, putting her in the same company as Snape and Regulus. Also, as Alla points out, she produced Tonks, so she seems to have done a pretty good job as a mother (unless we count giving her the name "Nymphadora," which Tonks vehemently rejects). In DH, we learn that Bellatrix and Narcissa stopped speaking to Andromeda when she married "the Mudblood" and that they don't regard her "brat" (Nymphadora) as part of the family. (Matters go further downhill when the "brat" marries a werewolf, and Bellatrix is quite ready to kill Tonks to trim the family tree.) In contrast to her sisters, and particularly the fanatical Bellatrix, who is willing to murder her own niece and sacrifice her nephew ("Spinner's End") for Voldemort's cause, Andromeda (and her husband) have provided one of the safe houses for the polyjuiced Harrys and their escorts, the one, in fact, which has been chosen as the destination for the real Harry. It's unclear whether they're actually members of the Order, but they are certainly trusted not only by their own daughter but by Mad-eye and the others who arranged the protections for the polyjuiced Harrys and their escorts. And then, finally, we see the real Andromeda. You said in an earlier post that our first glimpse of Andromeda shows her as "haughty," but you're forgetting the context. "'You!'' he shouted, and he thrust his hand into his pocket, but it was empty. "'Your wand's here, son,' said Ted . . . . 'And that's my wife you're shouting at'" (DH Am. ed. 63). Harry has just mistaken Andromeda for Bellatrix, whom she somewhat resembles, but her hair is lighter and "her eyes were wider and kinder" (63). No wonder she's affronted, but the reaction is temporary and her real concern is for her daughter's safety: "'What happened to our daughter? Hagrid said you were ambushed; where is Nymphadora?'" When Harry can't answer, Andromeda and Ted exchange looks. Their expressions are not described, but they cause Harry to feel "a mixture of fear and guilt" and a sense that it would be his fault if Tonks (or any of the others) died. He wants to apologize to Andromeda "for the state of fear in which he left her" but can't find the words. Ted tries to reassure "'Dromeda" that "Dora" will be okay, the nicknames speaking for themselves about the level of affection in that family (66). And the choice of kind, genial Ted (who later gently reprimands Dirk Cresswell for suggesting that Harry may be dead) as husband speaks well of 'Dromeda, too. Before we even see Andromeda, Ted tells Harry that his wife is tending to Hagrid (64), which suggests that, like Fleur and Molly (and her fellow Slytherin, Severus Snape), she has some skill at healing, as does her husband (who mended Harry's broken ribs and arm and even replaced his tooth). Healing seems to be a skill associated with good guys. I don't recall a healer who is genuinely loyal to Voldemort. (Healer!Snape was, IMO, a clue to Snape's loyalties in HBP.) We don't see Andromeda again, but we know that she provides a safe house for her daughter "Dora" and her husband Lupin after her own husband, Ted, is murdered and that the baby, Teddy, is born there. Since Teddy survives to be the happy, healthy orphan of the epilogue and he does not actually live with his godfather, Harry, despite spending quite a bit of time at his house, it seems more than likely that he was raised by his grandmother, who lost a husband, a daughter, and a son-in-law to Death Eaters despite being a pureblood and a relative of Death Eaters. We don't see it, but she must have transferred all of her love to Teddy and all of her domestic skills to raising him. The Andromeda that we see in "Fallen Warrior" and can infer from the other tidbits of information we have about her is a loving wife and mother who has abandoned any vestiges of pureblood supremacy and is doing her part in the fight against Voldemort even though she doesn't fight in the battle. (Surely, staying home to watch Teddy is at least as important as duelling Death Eaters. And after the battle, she is all that Teddy has left (except a very young godfather), and he is all that she has. I see nothing in canon to suggest that Andromeda is a "nasty" person or "thoroughly unlikeable." Sirius liked her and Ted loved her. She raised both Tonks and "our Teddy," who seems to be a perfectly well-adjusted young man who will probably end up as a Weasley by marriage (with a family of Veelalike daughters who can change their hair color at will. :-) ) Carol, glad that Andromeda and Teddy had each other and viewing Andromeda as without question a good Slytherin who suffered greatly offpage From starview316 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 30 16:59:15 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:59:15 -0000 Subject: Snape/Expelliarmus (Was Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177577 > va32h: > Harry learns other spells just by hearing the incantation and copying > it...I just don't see how this has become one of the defining moments > of the Snape/Harry relationship. It's a nice bit of irony, but > that's all, IMO. Amy: Actually, I agree, I didn't put it forth as a defining moment of the Snape/Harry relationship (at least, I didn't mean to), I was more responding to the idea that Harry, at least, recognizes that he learned the spell because he saw Snape use it. He directly acknowledges that, and IMO, he also acknowledges Snape's prowess at other spells. This doesn't make him value Snape as a person, though. Amy From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Sep 30 19:14:56 2007 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:14:56 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177578 > Prep0strus: > I think, for me, a lot is in in the expectations. After the strong > presence of Draco in the 6th book, as well as (what I surmised as the > motivations) the sacrifice of Dumbledore, I expected a lot out of > Draco's story in the 7th book. Pippin: After the fifth book, a lot of people expected more out of Luna, and even Cho and Marietta, than they got in the sixth one. In retrospect it seems that the fifth book was the book of Ravenclaw and the sixth was the book of Slytherin. It's not that Luna and Draco don't grow any more, but their persistence in the story mostly shows that Harry's new understanding of them was not mistaken. The understanding we gain of Slytherin House through Dumbledore at the end of Book Six is the one we are supposed to keep, IMO. As long as they are not killers, they are innocents and there is hope for them. Whether or not we understand Slytherin as an allegory of evil, it's surely not healthy for the people in the books to do so. If Harry hadn't thought Narcissa's love for her son would be great enough to protect him for the sake of Draco, he (Harry) wouldn't have been able to trust her. If Harry hadn't been able to think of Draco as Dumbledore did, an innocent to be protected, he wouldn't have understood that Narcissa could risk so much for his sake. Shacklebolt says "Every life is worth the same and every life is worth saving." It's not "Every life is worth something and some are worth more than others because they share my beliefs." JKR shows us that it is indeed much harder to live by the first standard than the second, even if your name is Harry Potter. But then she never promised that doing what is right would be easy. She never promised us that Harry would always do what is right. To say that people are shown not to be worthwhile because they died with their hopes unfulfilled -- isn't that what Tom thought? That his mother must have been a worthless person because she died? Do you think we're supposed to agree with him? Isn't it the worst side of Slytherinism to judge the worth of people by how much they contribute to achieving our ends? Prep0sterus: > snape is... the lack of hope. there is no hope in severus snape, or > for severus snape. 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. Prep0sterus: > (i don't even know why i'm thinking of it, but something makes me > think of dobby's death - dying and putting an end to the whole idea of > elf freedom. a messy c plotline jkr devoted a ton of time to, and then > threw away, because with dobby's death, no other elf even cares to be > free. dobby's death is the lack of hope for elves just as snape's > death is the lack of hope for snape. 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. Julie: > > Still, I agree that there shouldn't be a Slytherin House. > > Children who have already been indoctrinated with bigotry > > and the worst values should be sorted with those who have > > the best values, not with more of the worst! At least then > > they'd have an honest chance to experience a different > > way, and to absorb better values. Pippin: Except their parents wouldn't stand for it. The Slytherins are as proud of their House as the Gryffindors are of theirs. They'd leave Hogwarts and start their own school, and if you think Hogwarts would have been better off without them, consider that Sirius and Snape would have been sent to that other school as well. How are we going to stop children from believing in ideas we disagree with? Make them carve "I will not tell lies" into their hands? Pippin From starview316 at yahoo.ca Sun Sep 30 18:25:25 2007 From: starview316 at yahoo.ca (starview316) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 18:25:25 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177579 > Magpie: > > Lots of Slytherins put love over Pureblood values. They do crazy > things for love. They seem to be able to do this without necessarily > getting to the level of good people. Amy: The thing is, though, whatever the misgivings about DH and the HP series are, I think every reader can agree that the overriding message of these books is supposed to be about love, and how it's all powerful and conquers everything, etc, etc. So I guess I just can't see how a House of people who have a tendency to let love hold them back from being truly evil/let love overpower their other beliefs, however strong they are, is supposed to be seen as the House that no good can come from. I mean, it's disappointing that Draco didn't get a chance to really throw his lot in with the Good side, but I can't help seeing that as something that really IS inconsequential. I don't see why the only way for JKR to have made a statement about a good Slytherin would be to have a pleasant Slytherin firmly on the side of good for no reason except his/her own belief; when Good Side/Bad Side isn't really one of the stronger messages of DH -- Xenophilius, for example, turned in the Trio for Luna; this didn't place him on the Bad side even by JKR's standards. I really don't think the fact of Slytherins being able to love should be so negligible. Magpie: > > Andromeda could have been a nasty Slytherin who turned out to have a > heart of gold different from any other Slytherin we've seen before, > or even a flawed person who was still just as good as other heroes. > Or she could have been somebody thoroughly unlikable who had a > passion that ruled her and she was willing to leave her family over > it while still never being somebody Harry would actually like the way > he likes her husband and daughter right off. And that's assuming > she's Slytherin based on Sirius' comment. Amy: Maybe she was (an unpleasant person Harry wouldn't like); that doesn't take away from her being able to put love above all else leading her to be advocated by a lot of people here, and in fandom in general, as an example of a "good Slytherin". It may, in fact, turn out that Andromeda's only redeeming characteristic is her ability to love, but it still seems (by her position in the HP universe and in fandom) that's enough to lead to her not being condemned by either JKR, her universe, or the readers of HP. And Andromeda is a character who had a total of two sentences dedicated to her in the series. If she did give up everything for love, she's hardly the first Slytherin to do this. You mentioned how it was disappointing that we didn't see the one Slytherin we know closely doing anything significant for the Good side. I'd argue, though, that every Slytherin we actually DO know closely (with the exception of Voldemort), have demonstrated JKR's power of love theme very consistently, and I can't see why this would put them in a bad position in the narrative. Slughorn is the one Slytherin we see who isn't overruled by love, and imo, he's also the one character who is handled rather unsympathetically by the narrative *despite* seeming like a pleasant enough character. Amy From sassynpink at AOL.COM Sun Sep 30 18:05:18 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (sassynpink at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:05:18 -0400 Subject: Draco, Luna, Voldemort, Harry Message-ID: <8C9D1A39831EEB2-90C-2AFD@WEBMAIL-DC13.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177580 Pippin: "He'd been raised to think the rules didn't apply to him, that he could brag, bully or buy his way through life. That was his idea about the Dark Arts, that the rules forbidding them were for other people's protection. Purebloods didn't need them, just as they didn't need protection from Lord Voldemort." Jules: Draco was what he was raised to be. Muggle children are integrated into society when they start school at 5-6 years of age, if not sooner. Wizarding children do not enter school until 11 years old. That means that they spend even longer learning at the feet of their parents. The rules, morals and theories of what is right, wrong, or entitled is what is impressed on them. Muggleborn children or half-blood children would have a more diverse exposure to people and cultures, which would potentially provide them with a broader knowledge base on people. Purebood parents that have the beliefs that the Malfoys and Blacks have (as opposed to the Weasleys)? would not allow their children to have interactions with anything less than other Purebloods. Their only exposure would be witnessing their parents' disdain and ill treatment of others. In their families it would be the accepted thing. Luna, too, is a product of her upbringing. Yes, her parents were obviously eccentric. But, before Luna went to Hogwarts it is doubtful that she interacted with anyone other than those who associated with and thought like her father. Draco and Luna's choices were results of how they were raised. Voldemort had no such influences. True, he was raised in an orphanage. He was most likely picked on by bullies a bit when he was younger. Young Tom Riddle made choices that were evil. No one told him to. No one showed him how. He sought it out. It can be argued that his circumstances caused him to be emotionally crippled. Also, Dumbledore points out to Harry (after a trip in the pensieve) that the Gaunt family had suffered from the purebood inbreeding. Harry was an orphan. He was certainly given less love and care than he needed. He was taunted and bullied by all of the Dursleys. Yet, his choices were not to seek retribution. He didn't want to destroy their lives and make them suffer. He just wanted out. He made his choices according to his conscience. Something that Tom Riddle gave away long before he became Lord Voldemort. From sassynpink at AOL.COM Sun Sep 30 18:36:58 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (sassynpink at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:36:58 -0400 Subject: disappointment Message-ID: <8C9D1A804D1627D-90C-2BC5@WEBMAIL-DC13.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177581 Carol wrote: But it seems strange to me to condemn a book for not meeting our expectations, for not being the book we would have written. It's like condemning the HP films for not duplicating the books without considering that a film is a different medium with differing requirements and conventions. Maybe you should try reading the book a second time, knowing that things won't turn out as you hoped but trying to appreciate it on its own terms. Jules: Thank you, Carol. I have only been a member of this group a short time. I am fascinated by the depths that people find in a book that is written for children. I love the series, but sometimes the criticism and nitpicking I read here seems excessive. JKR wasn't trying to write a book that had any other purpose than to follow the story she had created. I don't think she meant to comment on the affairs of the world, hide political theories or religious dogma, or make judgments about classes, creeds or colors. I accept the HP books for what they are. I can wish for changes, think of alternate story lines and let my mind wander on the complexities of the characters, but still come back to the fact that it is HER story. Despite some inconsistencies, grammatical errors and lack of qualities that? some feel so crucial, it is loved the world over. She has made billions entertaining children and adults alike. From sassynpink at AOL.COM Sun Sep 30 19:32:36 2007 From: sassynpink at AOL.COM (sassynpink at AOL.COM) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 15:32:36 -0400 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? Message-ID: <8C9D1AFCA11614A-90C-2D19@WEBMAIL-DC13.sysops.aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177582 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. Jules: He was reacting like so many children, teens and adults do when hurt or angry. He lashed out with words that were hurtful, not necessarily what he felt. True, he had picked up the term from his DE cronies and had probably called other muggleborns by the term. But with Lily it was different. He loved her. Related it to "real" life. How many parents have heard their teen tell they (or probably yell) "I wish you were dead!" or "I hate you!"? Do they really hate their parents or wish they were dead? Probably (hopefully) not. But they are upset and lashing out. Do children really wish for the annoying sibling to get hit by a bus, fall off the fence or get bit by a dog? No, but when they are upset they will say what ever pops out first that conveys the hurt/anger they are feeling and lays it onto the other person. Unfortunatly for Sev, it was probably the final straw in his crumbling relationship with Lily. She already didn't approve of his DE friends. She was upset by what DE students and people are judged by the company they keep. Jules From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 21:18:12 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:18:12 -0000 Subject: Of love and Slytherin (Was: Andromeda as good Slytherin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177583 Amy wrote: > > The thing is, though, whatever the misgivings about DH and the HP series are, I think every reader can agree that the overriding message of these books is supposed to be about love, and how it's all powerful and conquers everything, etc, etc. So I guess I just can't see how a House of people who have a tendency to let love hold them back from being truly evil/let love overpower their other beliefs, however strong they are, is supposed to be seen as the House that no good can come from. Carol responds: I agree, and I think it's extremely important that the Slytherins we know who are wholly or partially redeemed are motivated by love. (Of course, there's also the sick, dark parody of love we see in Bellatrix's adulation of Voldemort, but I won't go there.) Even Bellatrix reveals a surprising affection for "Cissy" in "Spinner's End," but it's not deep enough to counter her loyalty to Voldemort (and Narcissa at this point is still loyal to LV herself but in contrast to Bellatrix, her love for her son overrides he loyalty). Draco's predicament in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" is particularly interesting because self-preservation *and* love of his family are insufficient to push him over the edge of evil (loyalty to Voldemort having, I think, already gone by the wayside). He doesn't want to die; he doesn't want his family to die; and yet he still can't bring himself to murder the man he has always regarded and still regards as a foolish old Muggle-lover. When Dumbledore says, "Draco, Draco, you are not a killer," he is speaking the truth. He understands Draco's fears and also his perverse pride in his accomplishment, fixing the cabinet and getting DEs into Hogwarts when all the adults expected him to fail in his mission and be murdered. Faced with a "foolish old man" who understands him and listens to him, Draco sees the truth about himself. Not even love of his family or fear for his own life can give him the "courage" (as he probably still sees it) to speak the words "Avada Kedavra." He remains indecisive, teetering on the edge of evil, even when the DEs appear and order him to get on with it until Snape pushes him roughly aside and does the job himself (as DD wants him to do). I would not call Draco an innocent here, as some posters have done. He has, after all, endangered two classmates with the cursed necklace and the poisoned mead (though he did not curse the necklace or poison the mead himself as someone stated awhile back). He has apparently Imperio'd Rosmerta himself and he has brought DEs into Hogwarts. But his soul can still be saved from being "ripped apart" (DD's phrase in "The Prince's Tale") by Snape's doing the deed in his place. (Snape, it need not be said, is motivated by the love for Lily that got him started on his mission to oppose Voldemort in the first place, concern for Draco's soul, and his promise to give DD the death of his choice--not to mention the UV he took for the same reasons, which will probably kill him if he doesn't act.) There are degrees of evil here with even Bellatrix, the darkest, able to feel affection for her sister; Narcissa, without question a pureblood bigot who would not have wavered in her loyalty to Voldemort had he not chosen to punish her husband by targeting her son; Snape, the former loyal DE turned away from evil by love (but still an unpleasant person whose favorite weapon is sarcasm); and Draco, a boy on the verge of manhood who still believes in pureblood supremacy but has learned that being a DE and serving the Dark Lord is not nearly as "glorious" and a lot more dangerous than he had thought. Ironically, love for his family and fear for their safety (and his own) is all that keeps him serving Voldemort; he no longer wants Voldemort to kill Harry Potter and take over the WW. Draco is weak and he has never been brave, but the contrast between his father's eagerness to turn Harry over to LV and his own reluctance to do so is very marked. I think--and no doubt many posters will disagree with me--that we are meant to hate Bellatrix, despise Lucius (who does love his son but not to the degree that inspires Narcissa's desperate courage and remains a self-serving coward to the end), dislike Narcissa but nevertheless prefer her to the mad and murderous Bellatrix, admire Snape's loyalty and courage (whether or not we like his personality), and pity Draco. They are all, with the possible exception of the humbled but still largely despicable Lucius, more fully human than they seemed before "Spinner's End" showed the proud Narcissa tearfully begging a half-blood to save her son. Until HBP, they have all (except the ever-ambiguous and mysterious Snape) been largely caricatures; from HBP onward, they become (IMO) characters. (Even Tom Riddle is fleshed out in that book and made less monstrous; unlike the other Slytherins mentioned, however, he is not shown to have a single virtue, only intelligence, power, charm, and cunning all used for his own increasingly evil ends.) > Amy: > I mean, it's disappointing that Draco didn't get a chance to really throw his lot in with the Good side, but I can't help seeing that as something that really IS inconsequential. I don't see why the only way for JKR to have made a statement about a good Slytherin would be to have a pleasant Slytherin firmly on the side of good for no reason except his/her own belief; when Good Side/Bad Side isn't really one of the stronger messages of DH -- Xenophilius, for example, turned in the Trio for Luna; this didn't place him on the Bad side even by JKR's standards. I really don't think the fact of Slytherins being able to love should be so negligible. > Carol: I agree. In fact, Xenophilius's love of his daughter in many ways parallels Narcissa's love of her son. Both are desperate, willing to do anything to save their child. I wonder if they would have gone so far as to sacrifice themselves like Lily Potter and Mrs. Crouch. If we're looking at courage, though, surely Narcissa's is greater than Xeno's (though she did not, of course, look Voldemort in the face when she lied to him; that would have been suicide). At any rate, as you say, JKR (via Hermione) doesn't condemn Xenophilius for his treachery because it was prompted by love, and he seems more cowardly than Narcissa, who betrayed the bad side for her son. *Not* a negligible act, IMO, even though it was selfishly centered on one person and not on the "greater good." (Lily's sacrifice was also focused on one person, her son.) Xeno/Luna is a variation on a theme that usually appears in the form of mother/son throughout the books, the all-consuming love of a parent for a child. And even Slytherins (was Mrs. Crouch a Slytherin?) can and often do love their children. Amy: > > Slughorn is the one Slytherin we see who isn't overruled by love, and imo, he's also the one character who is handled rather unsympathetically by the narrative *despite* seeming like a pleasant enough character. Carol responds: Ah, but Slughorn also has his moment of redeeming love or something like it, but it appears in HBP rather than DH. His affection for Lily enables Harry (as manipulative as any Slytherin in that chapter) to overcome Slughorn's shame at having given Tom Riddle information about Horcruxes and obtain the unaltered memory that tells them how many Horcruxes Harry has to look for. (That affection also misleads him into thinking that Harry must be a Potions genius like his mother rather than taking credit for someone else's ideas, but, oh, well.) And Slughorn does end up fighting for the good side after taking his students to safety, so I would include him in the Slytherins who, as Phineas Nigellus says, played their part. I'd include Phineas and Regulus, too. (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. 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. That plays no direct role in the defeat of Voldemort, but it does humanize him, portrait though he is. And even Mrs. Black, his grandaughter, seems to have gone mad through the loss of her sons, one a runaway who ended up in Azkaban, the other dead, with no body to bury and no explanation for his death.) Carol, noting that the Slytherins she had hoped to see in DH, Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" stories, too, and reasons why, unlike Draco, they chose not to join the DEs From stevejjen at earthlink.net Sun Sep 30 21:32:33 2007 From: stevejjen at earthlink.net (Jen Reese) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:32:33 -0000 Subject: Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177584 > Julie: > > Still, I agree that there shouldn't be a Slytherin House. > > Children who have already been indoctrinated with bigotry and the > > worst values should be sorted with those who have the best > > values, not with more of the worst! At least then they'd have an > > honest chance to experience a different way, and to absorb better > > values. > Pippin: > Except their parents wouldn't stand for it. The Slytherins are > as proud of their House as the Gryffindors are of theirs. They'd > leave Hogwarts and start their own school, and if you think > Hogwarts would have been better off without them, consider > that Sirius and Snape would have been sent to that other > school as well. > > How are we going to stop children from believing in ideas > we disagree with? Make them carve "I will not tell lies" into > their hands? Jen: Or sent to Durmstrang I suppose. One thing that happened during the course of the story is that we see pure-blood families dying off (Slytherin/Gaunts, Crouches, Crabbes? don't know) and changing in composition (Blacks, Potters, Weasleys). The Black family tapestry would only reflect two direct heirs in the story: Scorpius and Teddy (who wouldn't be considered acceptable for inclusion). No heirs from Sirius, Regulus, or Bella. Meanwhile the Weasley children are marrying half-bloods and Muggleborns and half- veelas and propagating at a good clip. All that to say that the house affected the most by this change has to be Slytherin imo, since one critera is 'We'll teach just those whose ancestry is purest.' (OOTP) Those children don't exist in the story except for Scorpius, as compared to Rose, Hugo, James, Lily, Albus, Teddy, and Victoire. I know technically there must be more pure-blood children out there , but I'm talking about children who come from families we see in the story who are prejudiced about pure-blood. In the end, Voldemort's goal to prune the diseased family trees, to 'cut away the canker that infects us until only those of the true blood remain' (DH, chap 1) amounts to an almost farcical proposition. In attempting to rid the WW of 'disease,' he actually caused the end of several pure-blood family lines by forcing those families into situations where they died in his service. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 21:36:08 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 21:36:08 -0000 Subject: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177585 > > Alla: > > > > So, tell me then what part of Andromeda did I write myself? Or are > > you saying that we are not even allowed to make first line > > inferences based on canon now? > > Magpie: > Andromeda doesn't appear onstage except for in one scene. We have a > series of facts about her that you did not make up, from there we can > imagine different actual characters and stories as to how she got > there. The only thing I remember of her description was that she > looked like Bellatrix and did she speak in a haughty way? Perhaps > Tonks takes more after her father in that respect. > > Anyway, my main point isn't to figure what Adromeda was or wasn't > like because as this conversation proves, we're just inferring and > imagining stuff based on the facts we know and other characters > because she's not on the page. The fact that she's not on the page > being my main point. "Slytherin Not Appearing In This Book" seems > like a weak argument. I doubt most readers even remember the woman > exists much less consider her a symbol of anything. Looking to her > for anything seems like scraping the bottle of the barrel and the > obvious joke response is to notice how just not appearing immediately > gives you a leg up on the others. > Alla: And my point is that what we know about her is enough for me to judge with the reasonable degree of certainty that she is a good person. Oh sure I do not know if she is nasty in the social interactions, she may as well be, although personally I doubt it. But I know that she did the right thing in marrying Ted ( as in following her heart) and that is enough for me to think that Andromeda at least has some values that I consider to be good and right. IMO of course. And actually I cannot believe I am going to say it for the second day in a row, but what Carol said in this thread I totally agree with. Andromeda and Ted help Harry on the way. I think that means a lot as well. Andromeda does not abandon her muggle born husband, no? Otherwise we would have heard about it? And as to her appearing in one scene, Regulus Black does not appear in more than one scene either and even that scene is from Kreacher POV. I have no doubt from that one scene that Regulus before his death at least was a person I would have been honored to be friends with. Not appearing except one scene. Emmeline Vance does not appear in more than one scene either. I do not know what kind of the person she was, but the fact that she fought for the Order makes me believe that she had values I respect as well. And I beg to differ about not remembering Andromeda. She was one of the most memorable characters I wanted to meet after OOP. My favorite cousin meant a lot for me. JMO, Alla From mercia at ireland.com Sun Sep 30 23:13:43 2007 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:13:43 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: <8C9D1AFCA11614A-90C-2D19@WEBMAIL-DC13.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177586 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, sassynpink at ... wrote: > > 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. > > Jules: > > He was reacting like so many children, teens and adults do when hurt or angry. He lashed out with words that were hurtful, not necessarily what he felt. True, he had picked up the term from his DE cronies and had probably called other muggleborns by the term. But with Lily it was different. He loved her. Related it to "real" life. How many parents have heard their teen tell they (or probably yell) "I wish you were dead!" or "I hate you!"? Do they really hate their parents or wish they were dead? Probably (hopefully) not. But they are upset and lashing out. Do children really wish for the annoying sibling to get hit by a bus, fall off the fence or get bit by a dog? No, but when they are upset they will say what ever pops out first that conveys the hurt/anger they are feeling and lays it onto the other person. > > Unfortunatly for Sev, it was probably the final straw in his crumbling relationship with Lily. She already didn't approve of his DE friends. She was upset by what DE students and people are judged by the company they keep. > > Jules He was also a fifteen year old boy deeply and publically humiliated by his bitterest rival in front of the girl with whom he was obsessed. He knew James fancied Lily. He suspected that she wasn't as indifferent to James as she claimed. He couldn't outshine James in anything and now the one before whom he would want to appear cool and clever and skillful has to come to his aid. Of course he is going to repudiate her help in the most violent way he can think of. He wouldn't even want her to see him in that situation, let alone be the one to restrain his tormenter. So he hurts the one he loves in response to the hurt he feels. Not mature behaviour. But for me very believable in such an isolated and tormented boy. It would certainly be a bitter memory for him and one he would want to conceal from Harry. But surely the memory of Lily's death and his part in it in relaying the prophecy to Voldemort must rank as his *worst* memory. Mercia From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 23:23:01 2007 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:23:01 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177587 > > 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. Alla: Well, my answer comes as no surprise I think :) I think that Snape since the youngest age hold the opinion that muggle borns are the wizards of lower order than purebloods. When he was in Lily's company, he naturally hold his tongue ( hence his hesitation when Lily asks if that would matter), but one can only hold his tongue as much till ones true beliefs come out. And when people are stressed in my experience everything that they really believe comes out. Snape's dark beliefs came out, he really thought that Muggleborns are the creatures of lower order, in my opinion. Oh yeah, he wanted to keep Lily as a friend, I think, he did like her, but he also believed what he believed in. 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? Yes, what Lily did worked for me very well. I said it several times that this word is like a code word for me that assumes very bad beliefs that person has. It is to me much more that just a bad word. It is a code for person hating whole group of people. Yes, I completely understand what Lily did and do not blame her of course one bit. I have to say, deeply despising Snape for doing that to his best friend, calling her that word, I do see that Snape realised at the end how bad that word is and the fact that he tells Phineas not to call Hermione that, yes means a lot to me. JMO, Alla From e2fanbev at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 23:26:58 2007 From: e2fanbev at yahoo.com (e2fanbev) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:26:58 -0000 Subject: Draco WAS: Re: Andromeda as good Slytherin WAS: Disappointment In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177588 > Robert: > > Personally, I like Draco the way he is. Despite everything, all the > > humiliation and torture his family went through, he has not wavered > from his personal beliefs. Bev: I don't see how changing Draco can be a satisfying end either. He is a notable character because of the way he was written. To change him completely at the end is too much wishful thinking, in my opinion. The fact that he can acknowledge Harry's existence as a human being and not a thing of contempt in the epilogue is enough for me. > > Prep0strus: > Again, it's how you read it. I don't know that he hasn't wavered. I > don't know that he has. I don't think JKR gave us nearly enough in DH > for me to make that determination. I don't think he's a man of > conviction at ALL - i think he's a man of expedience, and fear, and > finding a way to come out of it ok. i don't think he's a great bad > guy, and i don't think he's a good good guy. i think he's a pathetic > mush, but more, i think he's an abandoned storyline. I don't think > what we saw of him in DH gives us the ability to say anything for > certain when it comes to draco, and while sometimes ambiguity is a > good thing... in this case, i don't think it is. > 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. Bev From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Sep 30 23:40:35 2007 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:40:35 -0000 Subject: Why did Snape call Lily a 'Mudblood'? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177589 Jen wrote: > > 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. Mercia responded: > He was also a fifteen year old boy deeply and publically humiliated by his bitterest rival in front of the girl with whom he was obsessed. He knew James fancied Lily. He suspected that she wasn't as indifferent to James as she claimed. He couldn't outshine James in anything and now the one before whom he would want to appear cool and clever and skillful has to come to his aid. Of course he is going to repudiate her help in the most violent way he can think of. He wouldn't even want her to see him in that situation, let alone be the one to restrain his tormenter. So he hurts the one he loves in response to the hurt he feels. Not mature behaviour. But for me very believable in such an isolated and tormented boy. It would certainly be a bitter memory for him and one he would want to conceal from Harry. But surely the memory of Lily's death and his part in it in relaying the prophecy to Voldemort must rank as his *worst* memory. > Carol responds: While I agree that Severus fancied Lily and most of the rest of your post, I'm not so sure about "couldn't outshine James in anything." Judging from that detailed response to his DADA exam and Slughorn's view of him, I'm pretty sure that he excelled in both of those classes. (No doubt James outshone him in Transfiguration, considering that he put all that work into becoming an Animagus, but we also see his brilliance through McGonagall's and Lupin's rose-colored glasses.) If Sirius Black is to be trusted, Severus came to school knowing more "curses" (surely, schoolboy hexes) than half the seventh years and we see from his Potions book that he was brilliant in both spell-creating and potions improvements. How much of his brilliance Lily knew is hard to guess. She probably had a good idea of his proficiency in Potions since, according to Slughorn, she was a natural at the subject herself. Not a word from Slughorn on James's abilities in the subject, however. Lupin suspects that Severus was jealous of James's proficiency as a Quidditch player, but based on "The Prince's Tale," he was more jealous of James's status as a celebrity or schoolyard hero, which he felt was not deserved. He didn't want Lily to like James and was happy when she called him a "toerag." So rather than saying "he didn't outshine James at anything," I'd say that James received recognition for his talents and Severus didn't (except perhaps among his Slytherin friends). Ironically, Harry and Ron acknowledge the HBP's genius, but they don't know who he is (and Snape only knows that Harry is using his book to get marks he doesn't deserve in Potions and using his spells, not that Harry considered the HBP a genius and a friend). BTW, if it matters, both Severus and James (also Lily and Remus, I don't know about Peter and Sirius) were actually sixteen at the time if the tombstone dates in DH are correct. Kids with January or March birthdays would be sixteen, not fifteen, by the time the OWLs were conducted in June. Carol, who agrees with the rest of the post, particularly as it relates to Severus's feelings and the reasons for his humiliation From bawilson at citynet.net Sun Sep 30 23:17:36 2007 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 19:17:36 -0400 Subject: Slytherin House - LONG Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 177590 Johnsmithatx: "Right there in the first book we know right off the bat what each house admires as good traits for their members. It's very obvious that above the others there are going to be more lecherous folk in Slytherin than the others, simply by the traits they admire, ambitious people always have the proclivity towards "evil". Maybe that was the idea of having the house, to sort of wrangle in just how to use these dark thoughts and ideas into something more productive. Or maybe the idea was, if you take the psychological approach, that inside each of us we all have the potential for dark deeds, and we must accept that fact." Are you sure that 'lecherous' is the word you are looking for? It doesn't quite seem to fit. 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 moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Sep 30 23:55:37 2007 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:55:37 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0709301655w7ff50ac9j66dcde0dfcd6fb73@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 177591 izzybizz: I completely agree here and think the fundamental mistake that JKR had made is that she never redeems the Slytherins, she shows no hope for them and for this reason I think everything that Harry Potter has done to battle Voldemort was a waste! Lynda: And here was I, just happy that at the end the Malfoys senior did not participate in the fight on the side of Voldemort and that they they (Draco included) seemed desparately unhappy throughout the book while being reluctant hosts to the Death Eaters. 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. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]