From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 00:04:11 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:04:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux) In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0803301928w2e2aef5ew8aa982ded35e1b65@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0803311704x63d6ec7fqbe2280ff2fb6d019@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182366 I realized, just as I was sending off my answer that you were, of course referring to who in the books knew that Voldie had an obsession with Hogwarts--blame it on a long week and an overly busy weekend-- As for sending lackeys there was Snape of course--Voldemort didn't realize he'd switched sides. Then there was Quirrel and Barty Crouch Jr. Umbridge, although never a death eater certainly did her part for his cause and let's not forgeth that Lucius Malfoy was on the board of governers. That's plenty of lackeys for me. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 1 00:26:35 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:26:35 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secre?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182367 > > 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through Cloaks? > Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? Clearly, > someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing? Pippin: Nagini can't exactly see through the cloak, but she can see the cloak itself even when it's making someone invisible to human eyes. --- >From OOP, ch 21 : It was dark yet he could see objects around him shimmering in strange, vibrant colors. ...He was turning his head....At first glance, the corridor was empty...but no...a man was sitting on the floor ahead, his chin drooping onto his chest, his outline gleaming in the dark.... Harry put out his tongue....He tasted the man's scent on the air....He was alive but drowsing...sitting in front of a door at the end of the corridor... Harry longed to bite the man...but he must master the impulse....He had more important work to do.... But the man was stirring....a silvery cloak fell from his legs as he jumped to his feet; ---- Pippin: The cloak must have slipped off Arthur's upper body as he slept and puddled in his lap. A human looking at Arthur would have seen only the upper half of his body, and perhaps a pair of feet with nothing but the door in between. The cloak itself would have been invisible, as it is when Draco sees Harry's disembodied head in Hogsmeade. Nagini could have smelled Harry and Hermione while they had the cloak on, but presumably Harry would smell like the Muggle he was impersonating, not like the boy Nagini had met in the graveyard. I suppose Nagini was lurking in the graveyard until she saw them put flowers on the grave and pull on the silvery cloak. Then she went and got Bathilda's body (ugh!) and followed them by scent to the Potter house. But I don't think she could be sure it was Harry until she spoke to him in parseltongue and he answered her. I don't think she communicated with Voldemort until then...unlike the episode with Arthur, Voldemort was not actually possessing the snake. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 00:29:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 00:29:04 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182368 Zara: > > Second, Voldemort seems to have thought that Snape would be able to worm his way into a job at Hogwarts. Since he has no idea Snape has already betrayed him at this point, I think he should not expect this of a Death Eater he has sent to Albus as a messenger in the past. > In Spinner's End, the whole "tale of remorse" line Snape feeds Bellatrix, is apparently supposed to be something that happened post- GH, not something Voldemort suggested pre-GH. > > Potioncat: > I'm not so sure. I thought DD was supposed to know that Snape was a DE when he hired him. If DD had no reason to think Snape was a DE, Snape had no reason for the "tale of remorse". Speaking of which, that "tale of remorse" story to Bella was really true. Sort of. Besides, if Snape had been a messenger, it would give him the chance to offer his services. Just to clarify--I know DD knew Snape was a DE when he hired him. I thought LV had Snape pretend to switch sides when he went to work at Hogwarts. Or do you think LV kept Snape under wraps so that he could ask for the job as if he were not a DE? That is, LV did not know that DD knew of DE!Snape. In that case, Trelawney may have been right about part of Snape's motives that day. > Carol responds: Snape is altering the facts a little for Bella and for Voldemort: The "tale of deepest remorse" (entirely true) predates the application for a job at Hogwarts by quite some time and relates to his remorse for revealing the Prophecy, not, as Harry thinks, to the deaths of his parents, and not, as he implies to Bella (and probably LV) for being a Death Eater. He had, of course, been spying long enough to risk his life and prove his loyalty to DD before he applied for the job of DADA teacher, which he would have started exactly two months before the Potters' deaths (which he could hardly feel remorse for since they hadn't happened). I don't think that Snape had acted as a messenger; I don't know how DD knew that Snape was a Death Eater (maybe he was dressed as one or mentioned "the Dark Lord" in his message requesting a meeting with Dumbledore), but DD certainly hadn't told the Order, as I'm sure he would have done if he had known it previously. Nor do I think that he would have let Snape go after the eavesdropping incident if he had known Snape to be a DE at that time. Anyway, DD certainly knew that Snape had been and was still pretending to be a loyal DE when he hired him, but the meeting on the hillside is another matter. The lightning spell and Snape's uncharacteristic terror ("don't kill me!"), as well as DD's contemptuous treatment of him makes it seem as if he's known for some time that Snape was a DE, but I don't see how that fits with the Order members not knowing. Maybe it's a recent discovery or revelation by Snape himself. (Or maybe JKR is just forgetting the details of her story, as she sometimes does. This scene could have been written, like the epilogue, long before the rest of the series.) As for Trelawney's thinking that Snape was applying for a job, we know that she has been teaching for not quite sixteen years (implying a later than usual hiring date for a surprise job opening), whereas Snape has been teaching for fourteen years (no "almost"). So he would have had no reason to be eavesdropping on job interviews even if he really thought that Trelawney could give him "tips" (I don't think so, Sybil!) in, say, late October nearly two years before he actually applied for the DADA position on LV's orders. Let's say that the Prophecy/Eavesdropping occurs on Harry's conception date, October 31. (Well, that's how JKR would see it.) Between that time and Harry's birth on July 31 of the following year, Snape would have been a regular DE. Some time after that (not very long, if LV reads the birth announcements in the Daily Prophet), Voldemort would discover the identity of the two boys who had been "born as the seventh month dies." How much time passed before he let Snape know "how he interpreted the Prophecy," we don't know, but the incident on the hilltop seems to have occurred in winter given the cold and "the wind whistling through the leafless trees" (DH Am. ed. 676). It seems to have taken Voldemort awhile to make up his mind, or at least, to inform the young DE of his intentions. Let's say that it's December of Harry's birth year, some fourteen months after the Prophecy. It's unlikely that Snape applied for the always-open DADA position the previous August. Snape, fearing for Lily's life and distrusting Voldemort, begs Dumbledore to keep her safe and promises to do "anything" in return. That would mean some eight months of spying on LV "at great personal risk" to prove his courage and loyalty before he applies for the DADA position at Voldemort's request ca. August of the year the Potters died and begin teaching on September 1. (Maybe Trelawney took his application for this position nearly two years after she began teaching as evidence that he was looking for a job all that time--poor boy: twenty-two years old and unemployed since graduating from Hogwarts! I think she's just assuming, based on faulty hindsight, as many other characters do in the book, and her sherry-altered brain may be no better than JKR's at math.) At any rate, Dumbledore knew quite well whose side Snape was on by the time he hired him, but Voldemort wouldn't have known that. I think he thought that Snape's gift for acting and secrecy would enable him to hide his identity as a Death Eater from most of the Wizarding world 9as it almost certainly did), and to persuade Dumbledore, who might have guessed from the eavesdropping or from his former friendship with known DEs that Snape had been a DE, of his "deepest remorse" for having joined. He tells Bellatrix that he joined DD's staff "fresh from my Death-Eating days," which isn't really true. He was still a DE, albeit a disloyal one, at the time he was hired, and was ostensibly acting as a spy for LV. And Bella knows that he applied on LV's orders, not after Godric's Hollow when his "Death-Eating days" would really have been over (at least until LV's resurrection forced him to return as DD's spy). Sorry. I'm not really sure what I'm arguing here, only that the chronology is confusing. To return to the posts above, I don't think that Snape had acted as a messenger or that he had previously applied for the DADA position. I don't know how DD knew that he was a DE when they met on the hillside. it makes no sense to me, really. He definitely knew that Snape had been a loyal DE and was still pretending to be one when he hired him since Snape had acted as DD's spy for some time (I'm guessing eight months) before he was hired, which was considerably *after* his "tale of deepest remorse," which related to the eavesdropping. Why LV thought DD would hire Snape (aside from high marks on his DADA OWL and NEWT), I don't know. Certainly, he'd know that the supply of good DADA teachers was running short(!) but that doesn't explain why DD would allow a young man he knew to be a DE on his staff. Either LV didn't think DD knew (which doesn't fit with the "tale of deepest remorse") or he had great faith in Snape's powers of persuasion, along with Dumbledore's record of giving people second chances and supposed readiness to trust. What I want to know (changing the subject here) is what took Voldemort so long to act on the Prophecy. It's winter before he informs Snape that he intends to go after the Potters, but it's another ten months or so before he actually kills them (one week after the SK switch). Maybe they went into hiding in Godric's Hollow (ordinary precautions, no fighting, use the Invisibility Cloak or Poly-juice Potion when you go outdoors) on snape's information. At about this time, or earlier (a year before the Poters' deaths, according to Sirius Black), Wormtail started spying for Voldemort. That must have been when the Order members started getting picked off one by one (per Lupin): McKinnons and Prewitts and others with no direct connection to Harry being killed by DEs (Dorcas Meadowes by LV himself) being killed, probably on Wormtail's information. At some point, the danger to the Potters apecifically must have intensified and DD suggested the Fidelius Charm, which for some reason wasn't put into effect until a week before they died. (How Snape, who was at Hogwarts teaching Potions, knew about the increased risk and reported it to DD, I can't guess.) I suppose that JKR wanted Harry to be a toddler, not an infant, when his parents died, but unless "Wormy" was deliberately postponing giving information on the Potters and choosing other Order members to betray instead, I really don't see how even Voldemort could have taken so long to go after the Potter child. Maybe he thought that he needed to destroy or substantially weaken the Order first? And if it took only a week after the SK switch, why didn't he just find them and kill them before the Fidelius Charm was put in place? Carol, who hopes that JKR's vaunted encyclopedia includes a detailed chronology, complete with the dates of the eavesdropping, the encounter on the hillside, Snape's job interview and every other incident mentioned in my rambling and incoherent post From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 01:56:12 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:56:12 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182369 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > So my issue with the Voldemort story is that JKR went sloppy. > >> > >>Alla: > I was acknowledging the suspension of disbelief in any story where > child is a hero IMO and where adults have to take a second seat. > Betsy Hp: Ah. No, that's not something I do. And it's not something I felt I was expected to do for this series. Not until... well DH, to be honest. (I think there were warning signs fairly early on, but I ignored them because other things were hopeful and JKR was pretty coy.) But yes, I do expect child adventure stories to have a reasonable reason for the child being the one on the adventure. It's not like it's impossible or anything. Other children's stories have come up with reasons other than the adults being idiots for their child protaganists to be front and center. (The adults are busy and/or distracted. The adults are too set in their ways and/or the task needs a certain level of purity to achieve.) Frankly, I think it's the first thing an author should consider. That JKR showed her adults literally sitting around (maybe pranking a few bad guy offices) waiting for Harry to save their skins? That pushed my envelope of "suspension of disbelief" too far. For me anyway. A caveat: I haven't read a ton of children's books (including the ones you're using for examples, Alla). So maybe it *is* generally a given that the grownups are just stupid in children's books. It's not something I easily buy. But if it's just part of the genre, well, there you are. > >>Catlady: > > I don't object to Harry's special skill being luck, I object that > Rowling, having consciously or accidentally taken on a plot echoing > the archetype of the young boy who is the ONLY ONE who can do the > heroic task, 'went sloppy' (whose phrase what that? Alla's?) about > the reason that Harry is the 'only' one. > > The problem with a novel requiring a ridiculous condition for being > able to kill the target is that a novel requires a certain > superficial plausibility. > > I suppose she tried to make up a plausible reason with the love- > death protection and the not-a-Horcrux and the Elder Wand's > ownership and maybe all that Basilisk venom stuff that Carol is > going on about. I think she failed because it is all too confusing. > It must become clearly and blindingly obvious to readers why the > hero was the ONLY ONE, otherwise the archetype gets broken. > Betsy Hp: That was hard to snip! But yeah, I think I see what you're getting at, and I agree. I remember reading an essay way back in the day (college) about fairy tales and how the heroes of fairy tales do tend to prevail through luck rather than skill. (Sticky goose, magic purse, a clever talking cat in boots.) Thing is though, fairy tales are, in general, short stories. JKR wrote a seven book epic. Most of the epics I have known (I'm by no means an expert) have a hero with skills as well as luck. So I think by putting so much of Harry's success to luck rather than skill, JKR made a grievous error (at least for this reader). For one, it's hard to keep believing that one boy is so darn lucky. For another, it's hard to believe reasonable adults faced with the destruction of their world would put all their eggs in the basket of that boy's luck. Which ends in a hard to believe plot. And also some confusion, I agree. > >>Betsy Hp: > > I can suspend disbelief and believe that dragons help guard a bank > > run by goblins. Ask me to believe that a young boy and his plucky > > friends can waltz into that bank, steal stuff, and then escape on > > a dragon? > > > >>Pippin: > Why not? It's an inside job -- could some teenagers break into Fort > Knox if two of them were prodigies and they had the help of a former > employee? > > Or don't you think JKR did enough to establish that Hermione and > Harry were extraordinarily talented? Betsy Hp: But it had nothing to do with talent. The dragon being there for them to escape on wasn't part of their plan, it had nothing to do with any... I guess dragon skills. They were just lucky the dragon was there, wanted to leave, and wasn't angry enough (or hurt enough) to attack anyone who got close. No dependency on skill, no dependency on their inside man. Just luck. > >>Pippin: > Of course in a fable we expect luck to play a part in the hero's > victory. It's part of the reward for being virtuous. > Betsy Hp: But they weren't all that virtuous (they were planning on screwing over their inside man), so I'm not sure you could call it a fable. I think it *does* fit with the fairytale genre though where luck is just luck and virtue has little to with it (IIRC). > >>Lynda: > > Of course, with me, when that contract breaks down I simply > discontinue to read the book or books involved. That's simply the > way I handle situations like that (I am not telling you that you > should have done likewise just remarking on how I handle the > situation--there are too many books out there for me to put my > time into something I'm not enjoying). Betsy Hp: I wish I'd been able to, believe me. I enjoyed the series all the way through HBP. The Trio had begun to worry me a bit, but I thought this was a coming of age story, and generally those do go through their bit of darkness before the dawn. Unfortunately, I'd gotten my wires horribly and unforgivably crossed. This wasn't a coming of age story at all and the Trio remained the same. By the time I realized this was a story not to my taste (at all) I'd already invested my time and energy. More time and energy than any book experience before because of it being a work in progress and the internet. But yeah, this is by no means a big part of my life anymore, and I'm in a whole new fandom. Just, it was a pretty bad burn on my end (how was I so stupid? hive mind? lying author? what?). So sometimes I like to explore the reasons I got pulled in and what went wrong. Betsy Hp From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 1 02:26:59 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 02:26:59 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Snape that night WAS: Re: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182370 > Carol responds: The lightning spell and Snape's uncharacteristic > terror ("don't kill me!"), as well as DD's contemptuous treatment of > him makes it seem as if he's known for some time that Snape was a DE, > but I don't see how that fits with the Order members not knowing. Potioncat: I suppose it's possible that Snape didn't identify himself in the request for the meeting. He could have identified himself as someone who has important information about LV's plans, or some such. If nothing else, I've now read several plausible explanations for the meeting on the hill. >Carol: > As for Trelawney's thinking that Snape was applying for a job, we know > that she has been teaching for not quite sixteen years (implying a > later than usual hiring date for a surprise job opening), whereas > Snape has been teaching for fourteen years (no "almost"). So he would > have had no reason to be eavesdropping on job interviews even if he > really thought that Trelawney could give him "tips" (I don't think so, > Sybil!) in, say, late October nearly two years before he actually > applied for the DADA position on LV's orders. Potioncat: If LV had planned all along for Snape to go to work at Hogworts, he may have been consistently applying for the job over several years. But I agree, it's just as likely that Sybil was wrong. It seems that LV had people in the MoM and was trying to get Snape into Hogwarts, so he may have been keeping Snape's activities out of sight. DD could have suspected, but not known. Or perhaps the Order only went after actively bad DEs. If that makes sense. > > > Carol, who hopes that JKR's vaunted encyclopedia includes a detailed > chronology, complete with the dates of the eavesdropping, the > encounter on the hillside, Snape's job interview and every other > incident mentioned in my rambling and incoherent post > Potioncat, who thinks JKR would need to refer to the Lexicon to complete all that. And that wouldn't be sporting, would it? From gav_fiji at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 03:00:41 2008 From: gav_fiji at yahoo.com (Goddlefrood) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:00:41 -0000 Subject: Tongues (Was Re: Basilisk Venom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182371 > SSSusan: > Yeah, yeah, they went & retrieved some basilisk parts, but > they were gone a loooong time. We know what they were *really* > doing first, don't we? Goddlefrood: It should be borne in mind when attempting to speak Parseltoungue that other tongues might interfere with such attempts, in other words. From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Apr 1 04:38:36 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:38:36 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Tongues (Was Re: Basilisk Venom) References: Message-ID: <009301c893b2$40f92270$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 182372 >> SSSusan: >> Yeah, yeah, they went & retrieved some basilisk parts, but >> they were gone a loooong time. We know what they were *really* >> doing first, don't we? > > Goddlefrood: > > It should be borne in mind when attempting to speak Parseltoungue > that other tongues might interfere with such attempts, in other > words. Shelley: Other tongues, such as Hermione's in Ron's mouth, or vise versa! Yeah, that would interfere with speaking Parseltongue. From technomad at intergate.com Tue Apr 1 05:17:52 2008 From: technomad at intergate.com (ericoppen) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 05:17:52 -0000 Subject: Luna's Dad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182373 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Carol raises her hand: > > I 'gree with zgirnius. Harry and Hermione, though perhaps not Ron, > > sympathize with Xeno and hope he doesn't go to prison. He had > > courageously supported Harry through the Quibbler, but when his > > beloved only child is kidnapped by DEs and threatened with death, he > > knuckles under, not only printed the pro-Voldie version of events but, > > after an apparent struggle with his conscience, betraying Harry's > > presence to the DEs in hopes of getting his Luna safely back. Not > > admirable but understandable. Luna is everything to him. > > Alla: > > I sort of agree with Carol and zgirnius. In a sense that I do not hate > Xeno and totally understand his decision. And yeah, I am pretty sure > that I would have chosen the life of my child had I been forced to make > that choice. > > BUT if I had any rational thoughts in my mind left I would knew that > there is no way the gang of torturers and killers would let my child go > and yeah, I think I would have hated myself very much for deciding to > put another kid as a sacrifice to those torturers and killers. > > I guess what I am trying to say that I understand Xeno, but by no means > I can respect him. > > I am telling myself that there was no rational thought left in his mind > when he decided to betray the Trio and that is an excuse for him in my > mind - his anguish for his daughter, etc. > > And yes, I find it amazing indeed that Hermione was so compassionate to > Xeno that she managed to think of justifying him in DE eyes. > > I am amazed at her selfless behavior, yes. I do not know if I would > have spared Xeno a thought knowing that he was ready to sell me out, > had I been in Trio's place. > > JMO, > > Alla While I disagree with Xeno's actions, I can understand them; I think that Luna and Xeno are extremely close and he'd do just about anything for her. At the same time, he's portrayed as having even less street-smarts than Luna, which makes his actions of printing pro-Harry material while Luna's _at Hogwarts_ more-or-less consistent with his character. Someone with more low cunning would have probably pulled Luna out of Hogwarts as soon as the DEs' new regime started showing its true colors. From hpfgu.elves at gmail.com Tue Apr 1 14:06:36 2008 From: hpfgu.elves at gmail.com (hpfgu_elves) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:06:36 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182374 The list elves have been noticing a rather nasty trend lately and have decided to nip it in the bud (well, at this point it's more like a full bloom, but you get the idea). The discussions on Snape have divided us into two camps and have become too personal. We had hoped that it would straighten itself out without any elfy intervention, but alas, it hasn't. So, from this time forward, NO further Snape discussions will be tolerated. You have been warned. Titegen O'Lirpa for the List Elves From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 1 15:53:00 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:53:00 -0000 Subject: Tongues (Was Re: Basilisk Venom) In-Reply-To: <009301c893b2$40f92270$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182375 > >> SSSusan: > >> Yeah, yeah, they went & retrieved some basilisk parts, but > >> they were gone a loooong time. We know what they were *really* > >> doing first, don't we? > > > > Goddlefrood: > > > > It should be borne in mind when attempting to speak Parseltoungue > > that other tongues might interfere with such attempts, in other > > words. > > > Shelley: > Other tongues, such as Hermione's in Ron's mouth, or vise versa! > Yeah, that would interfere with speaking Parseltongue. SSSusan: Ah, so you mean when attempting to speak Parseltongue, if the tongues themselves are speaking French (as it were), there might be some difficulty with the wordsmithing? :) Siriusly Snapey Susan From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 16:49:36 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 16:49:36 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182376 "hpfgu_elves" wrote: > > The list elves have been noticing a rather nasty trend lately and have decided to nip it in the bud (well, at this point it's more like a full bloom, but you get the idea). The discussions on Snape have divided us into two camps and have become too personal. We had hoped that it would straighten itself out without any elfy intervention, but alas, it hasn't. > > So, from this time forward, NO further Snape discussions will be tolerated. You have been warned. > > Titegen O'Lirpa for the List Elves > Carol responds: You had me going for a moment! Carol, wishing Titegin O'Lirpa (Mike, right?) a happy April Fool's Day and the Twins (yes, Fred, too!) a happy birthday From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 18:05:45 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:05:45 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_HP_&_DH,_Chapt_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret_-_Snake_Vision?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182377 --- , "pippin_999" wrote: > > > >> 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione > >> beneath the Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini > >> can see through Cloaks? ... > > Pippin: > Nagini can't exactly see through the cloak, but she can see > the cloak itself even when it's making someone invisible to > human eyes. > --- > From OOP, ch 21 : > > It was dark yet he could see objects around him shimmering in > strange, vibrant colors. ...a man was sitting on the floor..., > his outline gleaming in the dark.... > > --- > Pippin: > The cloak must have slipped off Arthur's upper body as he > slept and puddled in his lap. A human looking at Arthur would > have seen only the upper half of his body, ... > > Pippin > bboyminn: Some snakes have a sense or type of night vision. Their visual spectrum extends down into the infrared range and this allows them to track small creatures like mice through dense grass and underbrush. This infrared vision is indicated in Nagini's case in the line- '...he could see objects around him shimmering in strange, vibrant colors.' If you have ever seen thermal or infrared sensing equipment, heat or infrared shows up as a gradient of colors. This infrared quality also gives snake good night vision. So, to a degree, yes, Nagini could see Arthur even in a dark hallway, and yes, since the snake is detecting infrared, she could see him under the Cloak. Steve/bboyminn From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 1 18:26:57 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:26:57 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182378 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > "hpfgu_elves" wrote: > > > > snip> > Titegen O'Lirpa for the List Elves > > > Carol responds: > > You had me going for a moment! > > Carol, wishing Titegin O'Lirpa (Mike, right?) a happy April Fool's Day > and the Twins (yes, Fred, too!) a happy birthday > Is this supposed to be a joke? If it is, you also had me very much believing too.Very Clever!!! Jayne Feeling silly From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 1 18:44:12 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 18:44:12 -0000 Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182379 --- "Zara" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > 1.) All the Horcruxes including Harry have been destroyed. Harry > > did that. He created that circumstance. Likely at some point > > in some undetermined future, some one else could have done > > that, but with each passing day in which Voldemort gains > > greater power, the opportunity and the likelihood to do so > > diminishes. > > zgirnius: > ... The bottom line is, Harry did not destroy all of the > Horcruxes including Harry. Harry destroyed the Diary and the > Harry Horcrux. ... > bboyminn: Just a minor correction, I was generalizing in what I said. The point was NOT that Harry destroyed every single Horcrux with is own hand, but that Harry had a hand, or an influence, in the destruction of each. As Carol pointed out, Dumbledore was able to use the Sword to destroy the Ring because Harry's actions have imbued the Sword with the power to do so. Again, even the Horcruxes destroyed by Ron and Hermione were not done so without some secondary efforts from Harry. The general thrust of this conversation, and of other similar conversations, is that Harry is not needed, which I deny. In every case, directly or indirectly, Harry has a hand in what happens. But, by the same token, I will not deny that in every victory, or escape if you prefer, that Harry has had help; he certainly could not have done so without the help of other people. So, on that point I agree, Harry doesn't really do anything alone. My central point was in response to the idea that 'anybody' could have done this; it didn't have to be Harry. But Harry does it because he is not the kind of guy to stay snug in his bed and leave it to others. Seamus could have defeated Voldemort given the right circumstances, except, he preferred to stay toasty warm in his bed and let other deal with it. Since he was not willing to make the initial effort, that, and his attitude, block him from making all subsequent efforts. Anyone could have defeated Voldemort, just as anyone could have conceived the Theory of Relativity. They had as much of a chance as Einstein or Harry, but they didn't act. They could have but they didn't. Harry did because he did; he chose to act while others chose to wait and see. > > > bboyminn: > > 2.) Harry is the presumed Master of the Elder Wand which > > Voldemort is wielding. Harry created that circumstance, > > though he did so inadvertently. Who else could have created > > a similar circumstance? Better yet, who did? No one. > > zgirnius: > If Albus had died of the Ring Curse, it is my opinion that > the Wand would have passed to Voldemort. Albus deserves credit, > in my book, for ensuring this did not happen through his > handling of the Draco mission with Snape. While his plan did > not work out precisely, in its absence, Harry would not have > been master of the wand. > bboyminn: Yes, but I find that a very thin supposition. That's like saying, if only Al Gore had won the election we wouldn't be in this mess. While it may have some truth to it, it's not reality. Bush won and we are in a mess. It's like saying if I have only been born rich instead of the son of a construction worker, I would be driving a new Jaguar instead of an old Ford. It may be true but it is irrelevant. I also question whether Dumbledore succumbing to the cursed ring constitutes a victory for Voldemort. I think the confrontation leading to victory and defeat needs to be a lot more direct. Hence, we see Grindlewald perched on the window waiting for Gregorovitch to catch him. To be the Master, their needs to be some degree of direct confrontation between its current Master and the one desiring to become the new Master. Of course, I can't say that with any true authority, it's just my vision of how the thing works. Though to your central point of Albus's plan going wrong but ultimately actually helping put Harry into the position he needs to be in, I agree. > > bboyminn: > > 4.) Harry does not act with vengence, or a will or desire > > to kill. Though he certainly has more reason than most. He > > defends himself, but does not really attack Voldemort. > > > > Who else would have thought to or been able to do this? > > zgirnius: > I am not convinced this was a necessary condition. If Harry > was vengeful and desried Voldemoert's death, and thus he and > Voldemort had *both* yelled "Avada Kedavra!" at the top of > their lungs, I would think Voldemort would be just as dead. > bboyminn: On this point, you may be right. Presumably, Harry could have cast any curse or spell as long as it occurred at the same instant as Voldemort's spell, and as long as the spells meet head on. But, I think there is an element involved that depends on Harry's innocence (such as it is). It is like in the forest, it is important for Harry to be passive and offer no resistance or defense against Voldemort's attempt to kill him. Back in the Great Hall, I see a similar theme playing out. Harry must by conscience, if not by actual need, rise above vengeance and aggression, and act only to defend himself. By the technical aspects of magic, you are probably right. But by Harry's character, and by the spiritual (or abstract if you prefer) aspects of the books, I think it is important that Harry not counter with his own Killing Curse. If Harry had countered with a Killing Curse would we be able to say that Harry did not kill Voldemort? That Voldemort died by his own hand, his own arrogance, his own greed, by his own lack of remorse? I think it was necessary for Harry to not throw a Killing Curse; I think it was important for Harry to respond defensively rather that offensively. Still, on the technical point, you are probably right. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 1 19:44:40 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:44:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182380 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfgu_elves" wrote: > > The list elves have been noticing a rather nasty trend lately and > have decided to nip it in the bud (well, at this point it's more like > a full bloom, but you get the idea). The discussions on Snape have > divided us into two camps and have become too personal. We had hoped > that it would straighten itself out without any elfy intervention, > but alas, it hasn't. > > So, from this time forward, NO further Snape discussions will be > tolerated. You have been warned. > > Titegen O'Lirpa > for the List Elves Potioncat: No Snape threads!? Won't be tolerated! Dunderheads! Too personal, is it? You fools! Elfy intervention indeed, I think you've been in the Elf-made wine! No Snape! Nip it in the bud! Full Bloom my eye! Buds and blooms and even a few showers. I think I'll just go out and enjoy the sunshine on this first day of April. You do not know how much this has made my day! I took an early look at the site and sighed at the memory of past April Fools Days at HP4GU, and how all the HP sites were full of foolishness and fun. Thanks for the smiles! Potion O'Cat From k12listmomma at comcast.net Tue Apr 1 22:57:01 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2008 16:57:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! References: Message-ID: <00a601c8944b$b31dc5b0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 182381 Shelley: I have to admit- you had me going there! I was about to write a complaint letter, saying how Snape is my favorite character to talk about! But now I feel a bit foolish, and red in the face. Good thing I hadn't sent it yet! > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "hpfgu_elves" > wrote: >> >> The list elves have been noticing a rather nasty trend lately and >> have decided to nip it in the bud (well, at this point it's more like >> a full bloom, but you get the idea). The discussions on Snape have >> divided us into two camps and have become too personal. We had hoped >> that it would straighten itself out without any elfy intervention, >> but alas, it hasn't. >> >> So, from this time forward, NO further Snape discussions will be >> tolerated. You have been warned. >> >> Titegen O'Lirpa >> for the List Elves From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 1 23:19:33 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:19:33 -0000 Subject: One True Hero and Hero By Committee - LONG (Was: Re: WHo needs Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182382 > > zgirnius: > If Vincent Crabbe could cast Fiendfyre, I don't care how scared > Hermione is of it. An Albus Dumbledore or a Severus Snape (not an > exhaustive list, just two people who must have the skills) could use > it to destroy a Horcrux/Horcruxes. Pippin: But would that be wise? I think the name is to be taken literally. IMO, fiendfyre summons the fiery fiends (probably Luna's heliopaths) which Harry saw in the RoR, but does not give the caster any power to control or dismiss them. Though there must be some way to contain them or the WW would have had a China syndrome accident by now, it may be more luck than skill that they haven't. It's conceivable that there are deadlier things than Voldemort and a fiendfyre meltdown could easily be one of them. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 01:39:14 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:39:14 -0000 Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182383 The List Elves will have their little joke, but we'll post on Snape, anyway, won't we, Potioncat? Potioncat wrote: > But it crosses my mind, what would have been discovered in Professor Snape's office and quarters after his death? Surely he had notes? Carol responds: I think he kept all his potions improvements in his head (which is why he didn't need that old book and could cast the Potions instructions on the board with a flick of his wand), and all that an investigator would find is some old lesson plans for Potions, written when he was twenty-two, and for his year as DADA instructor (I think he would also keep those in his head after the first year), some essays that he never finished marking (his year as DADA teacher ended rather abruptly and unexpectedly), and maybe a few scribbled notes for new spells if he was still inventing them as an adult. They might find some old Daily Prophets with certain articles circled, as well. OTOH, judging by his old Potions book, he was not averse to writing in his books, and his marginalia would be very interesting. Maybe they could find his marked-up copy of "Magical Drafts and Potions" by Arsenius Jigger, the seldom-consulted Potions book assigned in Harry's first year (and presumably used until NEWT year since Snape never assigns another one). Snape's versions of the potions in that book were probably better than Jigger's, or he'd have had the students work straight from the book, as Slughorn did with the NEWT text, "Advanced Potion Making" by Libatius Borage (the fifty-year-old textbook that he'd used since Eileen Prince's time, and which the teenage HBP so dramatically improved). Anyway, it's a sad loss. Too bad that Snape himself never retrieved the book. Or maybe he did--Harry doesn't open the cupboard to see if the HBP's book still there when he finds the diadem. He only looks at the statue of the warlock wearing the dusty wig with the diadem/tiara on top. After all, the book was Snape's, and he doesn't yet know that Snape is a good guy, not to mention that he's dealing with Crabbe at the moment and concerned with retrieving the Horcrux. He could have opened the ROR searching for his book and looked right at the diadem without knowing what it was, just as Harry walked right past the Vanishing Cabinet that Draco was working on the year before. Carol, wishing that Yahoo!mort hadn't chosen to act up on this April Fool's Day From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 01:47:27 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 01:47:27 -0000 Subject: Who needs Harry? (was: GoF CH 27-29 Post DH look/ Snape and Harry redux) In-Reply-To: <2795713f0803311704x63d6ec7fqbe2280ff2fb6d019@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182384 Lynda Cordova wrote: > > I realized, just as I was sending off my answer that you were, of course referring to who in the books knew that Voldie had an obsession with Hogwarts--blame it on a long week and an overly busy weekend Carol responds: No problem. :-) Lynda: >As for sending lackeys there was Snape of course--Voldemort didn't realize he'd switched sides. Then there was Quirrel and Barty Crouch Jr. Umbridge, although never a death eater certainly did her part for his cause and let's not forgeth that Lucius Malfoy was on the board of governers. That's plenty of lackeys for me. > Carol responds: Thanks for the explanation. I knew you were thinking of Snape, whom he only supposed was his lackey, but I wasn't thinking of any of the others. Quirrell was already a Hogwarts teacher, evidently on leave or just on holiday when he met Vapor!mort, so even though he served as LV's lackey at Hogwarts, I don't think LV sent him there. In any case, LV was after the Philosopher's Stone. I don't think that a fondness for or obsession with Hogwarts had anything to do with it. Barty Jr. was certainly his lackey, sent to Hogwarts to put Harry's name in the Goblet of fire, turn it into a portkey, and make sure that Harry won the tournament. Again, I don't see that an obsession with Hogwarts was involved, only a determination to use harry's blood in the restorative potion before killing him. So, if Harry is at Hogwarts, Barty Jr. has to be at Hogwarts. I don't think that Lucius was a member of the Board of Governors in Voldie's time; he was rather young. I think he made that move on his own account after Voldie "died," trying to influence the Board of Governors to think his way. He acts on his own trying to influence Fudge before Voldemort returns. (He's Fudge's guest in the top box at the QWC while Voldie is still in fetal form, depending for the survival of that frail body on Nagini's "milk.") Umbridge is a tricky one, but I think that she honestly believed (with Fudge) that Voldemort wasn't back. She was interested in establishing the Ministry's power, and her own within it, and in discrediting Dumbledore. When she discovered that Voldie really was back, she happily changed sides or rather, accepted the new leadership and made sure that she had an influential position in the DE-led Ministry hierarchy. Anyway, he certainly didn't send her to Hogwarts. He was keeping his return to a body a secret and concentrating on retrieving the Prophecy. Anyway, I don't see how any of those lackeys (Snape and Barty Jr. being the only ones that he actually sent, but I'll count Quirrell, whom he controlled, for the sake of argument) show an obsession with Hogwarts per se. Snape was sent to spy on DD, Barty to arrange for Harry's kidnapping, and Quirrell to help him get the Philosopher's Stone (connected with his obsession with immortality, but also, more directly, like the kidnapping of Harry, to help him get a body). Carol, who intended to offlist this response but decided to post it here instead given the dearth of posts today From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 13:54:02 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:54:02 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182385 Betsy Hp: But yes, I do expect child adventure stories to have a reasonable reason for the child being the one on the adventure. It's not like its impossible or anything. Other children's stories have come up with reasons other than the adults being idiots for their child protagonists to be front and center. (The adults are busy and/or distracted. The adults are too set in their ways and/or the task needs a certain level of purity to achieve.) Frankly, I think it's the first thing an author should consider. That JKR showed her adults literally sitting around (maybe pranking a few bad guy offices) waiting for Harry to save their skins? That pushed my envelope of "suspension of disbelief" too far. For me anyway. Alla: Well, but I mean the reasons that you listed other reader can consider to be exactly what you (and sometimes me as well) think of as idiotic behavior of adults in Harry Potter, no? For example, absolutely if I sit down and think that nobody bothered to research Voldemort's quest for immortality but Dumbledore, while at the same time TEENAGER find out about horcruxes, I will think of it as pretty idiotic behavior. My thing is that contrary to you this is not something that I care to think much about, you know? I mean, I will think about it as possible and plausible AU scenario, but I am concentrated on Harry and like to follow his journey, etc. But at the same time here is another related example, which I am guessing you will still consider idiotic behavior (and this IS a guess, so tell me if I am wrong), while I will consider as perfectly reasonable and in character behavior for adults involved. Dumbledore was not telling anybody about horcruxes and telling Harry to involve Ron and Hermione only. Do I think it is sheer idiocy? Oh you bet I am. But I also think that it is perfectly consistent and very in character for Dumbledore, so I really do not need to suspend my disbelief all that much here. Another thing, while I think that the ONE mention by Dumbledore of the huge task that he leaves to Harry and that he and his teenage friends are only people capable of doing should have caused several other order members to slap him silly and tell him ? tell us what it is old man NOW, you are not leaving teenager to fight Voldemort without adult's help, I also think that once Dumbledore is dead, adults behavior IS reasonable. I think it is reasonable in a sense that they KNOW Harry and they know that once he promised, it is useless to pester him and it is better to leave him alone. To go back to your original list of reasons, what I am trying to say is that one's mileage may vary and what one considers good reasons for adults to be unavailable, another will think as idiotic ones. Like for example, in the Secret Garden I find it perfectly understandable for Colleen (this was the boy's name, yes?) to be absent, but at the same time, children in that book are not saving the world, so my demands to suspend disbelief are lower. But take Artemis Fowl, where freaking twelve year old knows everything and does the things for which I wish he would have been spanked for the longest time (and to tell you how aggravated I was when I read that book, I NEVER wish even for fictional character to be spanked EVER) , oh dear god, no I did not buy the reasons of his parents noninterference. Was his mom sick and his father absent all the time or vice versa? But mind you his adult butler ( or whatever servant he was) just went along with everything that child wanted to do. So what I am trying to say is that I am sure author of Artemis Fowl went for adults are busy or distracted part, and to me it is still idiocy. You also mention as the reason that would be good for you is that certain purity is needed to achieve the task. Eh, you are not buying that Harry's task also needs certain purity, but I absolutely am buying it, you know? So again, I think that it is all in the eyes of the reader IMO. Betsy Hp: A caveat: I haven't read a ton of children's books (including the ones you're using for examples, Alla). So maybe it *is* generally a given that the grownups are just stupid in children's books. It's not something I easily buy. But if it's just part of the genre, well, there you are. Alla: Well, the funny thing is that my favorite books while I was a child was already teens' or adults books ( Dumas, Verne, Sabatini, Scott, etc). I mean after my fairy tales phase, I was very into adventure, but adventure where adults played main roles, so I did not read many books where kids were main characters either. Those books went into adulthood with me as well. I started reading more books like this while I was reading Harry, partly because I liked them as well, but also partly that I needed an easier reading in English than I needed in Russian obviously. So yes I can say that during last few years I read quite a few of them. IMO it IS part of the genre, while every author sometimes manages to come up with more or less convincing reasons for adults being out of the picture, but rarely fully convincing, to me anyways. JMO, Alla From jlenox2004 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 16:41:39 2008 From: jlenox2004 at yahoo.com (jdl3811220) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:41:39 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182386 Jenni from Alabama: I know that a Corporeal Patronus will repel a dementor... but I don't remember ever reading about one actually killing a dementor. Can dementors be killed or are they immortal? Jenni From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 19:21:47 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:21:47 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182387 Betsy Hp wrote: > But yes, I do expect child adventure stories to have a reasonable reason for the child being the one on the adventure. It's not like it's impossible or anything. Other children's stories have come up with reasons other than the adults being idiots for their child protaganists to be front and center. (The adults are busy and/or distracted. The adults are too set in their ways and/or the task needs a certain level of purity to achieve.) Frankly, I think it's the first thing an author should consider. Carol responds: Aside from Harry's unique qualifications (the scar link with Voldemort and Parseltongue) and his motivation (Voldemort killed his parents and is after him because he believes the Prophecy, so Harry will have to confront him at some point in any case) and the soul bit in his scar, which means that he *must* be "killed" by Voldemort, all of which pretty much means that Harry is going to be involved in the Horcrux quest at some point (and only Hsrry can destroy the diary Horcrux and turn the Seord of Gryffindor into a Horcrux destroyer). That being the case, the sooner he is trained, the better. Dumbledore, though he makes mistakes, is not an idiot. He has created the Order of the Phoenix (admittedly, not as effectual as we would wish it to be). He has provided the blood protection for the Prophecy Boy until he reaches Hogwarts age, at which point he can be subtly trained and guided. He has a network of spies, including Aberforth at the Hog's Head, who have been supplying him with information on Tom Riddle and his whereabouts since before the DADA interview. (He knows, for example, that Vapor!mort is hiding in Albania.) He has been collecting memories related to Tom Riddle and his crimes since the murder of the Riddles (not believing Morfin to be the killer despite his confession; he knows tom riddle too well). He seems to have suspected that Voldemort was making Horcruxes long before Godric's Hollow; otherwise, he could not have known that Voldemort, whose body seems to have been destroyed, would come back. He deduces from the destruction of the diary Horcrux that his multiple Horcrux theory is correct and begins searching for the Horcruxes that he knows about from the memories (the ring, the locket, and the cup) and discovers the locations of two of them. He destroys the ring Horcrux (yes, putting on the ring was a stupid, stupid blunder--thank goodness for Snape) and figures out how to get into the cave, a feat that requires the ability to detect traces of magic that Harry (and, I think, most Wizards) would have no idea how to find. Similarly, he discovers the invisible chain that pulls up the boat. And Dumbledore trusted Snape, without whom he would not have been able to spy on Voldemort and without whose help he would have died from the ring curse, with no way to deliver the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry or to inform him of the need to sacrifice himself. Nor would I consider Snape, who kept his cover at great cost to himself, in the least incompetent. (You may consider his obeying Dumbledore idiotic, but it's not as if he never questions or opposes Dumbledore. He *chooses* to keep his own promise to do "anything" even after DD fails to protect Lily (it is not, of course, DD's fault that the Potters chose a different Secret Keeper and then changed without telling him). I've already discussed the measures that Snape took or may have taken to protect the students at Hogwarts during his year at headmaster. It's true that he couldn't prevent some of the students from being Crucio'd by the Carrows, but no student was killed (and I'm pretty sure that his reposting Umbridge's ban on organizations was intended to encourage the DA to reform in opposition to their supposed DE headmaster). And, of course, the antagonism between Snape and Harry, along with Snape's desire for his help and protection to remain unknown, prevents him from helping Harry openly or Harry from accepting his help (unless we count teaching him Expelliarmus and, via the HBP, teaching him Muffliato and other spells, not to mention reminding him of Snape's first lesson on Bezoars, which saves Ron's life in HBP). We do have a reason why Lupin doesn't help Harry in OoP or HBP; he's spying on the werewolves. In DH, Harry declines his offer to help them, believing (rightly, IMO) that Lupin's duty to his pregnant wife and unborn child should come before anything else. McGonagall has her duties as teacher, head of Gryffindor House, and deputy headmistress. (Probably DD doesn't want her on the Horcrux hunt, however "sprightly" she was until those four Stunning Spells forced her to use a walking stick for awhile, because he needs her where she is. We see her once dressed as a Muggle, which suggests that she acts as a spy in Muggle London over the summer.) Sirius Black has a very good reason for not helping Harry find the Horcruxes; he's dead. So is the paranoid ex-Auror Mad-Eye Moody by the time the Horcrux begins. And so, of course, is Dumbledore (who nevertheless provides indirect aid via Snape and Snape's spy, portrait Phineas). Tonks is newly pregnant with a half-werewolf child and in danger himself from her wacko aunt. And Mrs. Figg is a Squib, for crying out loud. Mr. Weasley quite reasonably helps Ron plan an alibi for missing school, allowing him to go with Harry but not imposing his own company on them. Mrs. Weasley tries, motherlike, to protect them from danger. Everyone is accounted for in some way, and in no case is idiocy the excuse. And the thing is, Harry has Hermione's book knowledge and Ron's loyalty (once he defeats his inner demons by destroying that Horcrux) and his own scar connection to help him, as well as the knowledge of Riddle!Voldemort imparted to him by Dumbledore. It's a shame that he made the side trip to Godric's Hollow, but otherwise, he and his friends did at least as well as any full-fledged adult would have done. (I know that seventeen is considered an adult in the WW, but I would have liked it better if they had finished their Hogwarts education and embarked on Horcrux-hunting in Year eight.) So, I really don't see your objection. He and his friends are not entirely without adult help, Harry has been trained for the job, and, thanks to Godric's Hollow, he is uniquely qualified for the task. The absence of adults on the quest is accounted for. Harry wouldn't even be involved if it weren't for Godric's Hollow (even supposing that he survived an uninterrupted Voldie regime in which Snape is a loyal DE and Lucius Malfoy has not disgraced himself and Bellatrix and the Lestrange brothers and Barty Jr. and Dolohov and all the rest have never been arrested or restrained). But imagine the series without Godric's Hollow. Voldemort wouldn't be Vapor!mort, which means that he wouldn't be possessing Quirrell trying to get at the Philosopher's Stone. There goes SS/PS. He would have created the diary, but Lucius wouldn't have put it in Ginny's cauldron against orders thinking that his master was dead, and even if LV ordered him to do so, a scarless Harry without a soul-bit infested scar would have been unable to open it and destroy the diary (not to mention kill the Basilisk and make the Sword of Gryffindor into an anti-Horcrux weapon). There goes CoS (and possibly Hogwarts, if the Basilisk is at large and DD can't destroy him). Sirius Black wouldn't have been arrested for supposedly killing those Muggles and Peter wouldn't have been hiding as Scabbers and run off to rejoin Voldemort. There goes PoA. Wormtail wouldn't have made Voldemort a fetal form and Voldie wouldn't have plotted to kidnap Harry to use his blood in a resurrection potion. There goes GoF. Voldie wouldn't have spent almost a year trying to implant visions in scarless Harry's head to retrieve the Prophecy orb because there would be no Prophecy Boy. There goes OoP. Dumbledore would not be giving scarless Harry, who has no more connection to Voldie than anyone else (and doesn't have an accidental Horcrux in his head) special lessons on Voldemort, nor would DD have been saved by Snape from the ring Horcrux, and even if he had survived by not putting on the ring, he wouldn't have had Snape to kill him in Draco's stead. There goes HBP. And, of course, DD wouldn't have willed HRH three key objects and sent them on a Horcrux hunt and Hrry wouldn't have had to sacrifice himself and save the survivors of the battle from Voldie's magic as his mother did (no shared drop of blood, etc.). There goes DH. So, fine. Let's have a book of school adventures about a boy wizard named Harry Potter who plays Quidditch and dislikes a teacher named Snape and deals with a snob named Draco with bully henchmen who go by their last names. We can even have Harry orphaned and raised by Muggle relatives. Make it a Bildungsroman in which he learns not to judge people (Luna, Neville, Snape, even Draco) based on appearances. Bring in motifs like love, loyalty, courage, friendship, and prejudice. But, without Godric's Hollow, the story as written--the specific adventures that Harry embarks on and the central conflict with Voldemort--cease to exist. Or let's have a story of adults faced with the problem of a Dark Wizard calling himself Voldemort, taking away the Prophecy and the vaporization and the fourteen-year respite and the accidental survival of the boy with the scar, who is now just an ordinary wizard kid who may or may not be an orphan and is of no interest to this story about adults. One of them will have to be a Parselmouth if the diary is to be destroyed and the locket to be opened, and forget about the Sword of Gryffindor as a Horcrux destroyer unless one of them does what Harry does in CoS. Let them find a deadly poison whose only use appears to be to destroy Horcruxes (surely it can't be a potion ingredient available on the black market because it would destroy any cauldron or container it was put in) or risk using uncontrollable Fiend-Fyre (any idiot can cast the spell, as Crabbe proves, but any idiot can also push a button that causes a nuclear holocaust). Might make a great adventure/detective story if you take away the necessity for Harry's presence and give the job of Chosen One to an adult. Either way, the story that JKR might have written would be very different from the series that we have, which requires Baby!Harry to survive Godric's Hollow thanks to the Snape/Lily connection and his mother's sacrifice; the particular powers, the unwitting gift of Voldemort, that reside in Harry's scar; and the vaporization of Voldemort. Carol, who thinks that JKR has quite successfully written a series that requires Harry's involvement in the destruction of the Horcruxes (especially the diary and the locket, which only he can open) and Harry alone to face Voldemort in the end From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 19:40:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:40:24 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182388 Carol: We do have a reason why Lupin doesn't help Harry in OoP or HBP; he's spying on the werewolves. In DH, Harry declines his offer to help them, believing (rightly, IMO) that Lupin's duty to his pregnant wife and unborn child should come before anything else. McGonagall has her duties as teacher, head of Gryffindor House, and deputy headmistress. (Probably DD doesn't want her on the Horcrux hunt, however "sprightly" she was until those four Stunning Spells forced her to use a walking stick for awhile, because he needs her where she is. We see her once dressed as a Muggle, which suggests that she acts as a spy in Muggle London over the summer.) Sirius Black has a very good reason for not helping Harry find the Horcruxes; he's dead. So is the paranoid ex-Auror Mad-Eye Moody by the time the Horcrux begins. And so, of course, is Dumbledore (who nevertheless provides indirect aid via Snape and Snape's spy, portrait Phineas). Tonks is newly pregnant with a half-werewolf child and in danger himself from her wacko aunt. And Mrs. Figg is a Squib, for crying out loud. Mr. Weasley quite reasonably helps Ron plan an alibi for missing school, allowing him to go with Harry but not imposing his own company on them. Mrs. Weasley tries, motherlike, to protect them from danger. Everyone is accounted for in some way, and in no case is idiocy the excuse. Alla: Absolutely, I quite agree that those are good reasons,I would argue with the degrees of them, but as whole I agree more or less. I would add some bad reasons to that - like adults of Order not questioning Dumbledore nearly enough IMO, BUT that is how many people you listed? I counted seven, give or take (oh dear my maths ARE bad), and last time I checked there are much more people in Wizarding World than that. And also last time I checked Voldemort DID threaten WW as whole. Where are all those people? And of course, it is AU objection, I am aware that story is not about them, but yeah, I do find that behavior to be idiotic. Mind you that does not make BOOK idiotic in my eyes, just the behavior of WW. And yes, I give WW more credit than you seem to and for the reasons that Magpie so eloquently described before, I think the possibility of other people discovering about horcruxes is NOT out of reach at all. Regulus' example is a testimony to that IMO. JMO, Alla From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 19:49:02 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:49:02 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182389 --- "jdl3811220" wrote: > > Jenni from Alabama: > > I know that a Corporeal Patronus will repel a dementor... but I don't > remember ever reading about one actually killing a dementor. Can > dementors be killed or are they immortal? > > Jenni > bboyminn: Despite the Dementors somewhat vaguely human-ish form, I don't think they are born (in the normal sense) or that they die. I think it more likely that they wax and wane with the mood of the times. During better times the 100 or so Dementors are content to remain at Azkaban and feed off their Ministry supplied prey. But as Voldemort returns and times become darker, and the Dementors are given more free rein, I think their numbers begin to multiply. Once the dark battles are ended and people are more pleased and in less of a dark mood, their number start to fade. Like most creatures their numbers rise and fall with the availability of food. When the world is in a dark mood they feed of that darkness multiplying themselves and exaggerating the mood that supports them. Again, as the dark mood fades, the food supply dries up, and the Dementor numbers fade. Here in Minnesota the Deer and Wolf populations are so intertwined. When deer are plentiful, so are wolves. But when deer are scarce, the wolf population drops in proportion to that available food supply. I don't see the Dementor as being truly human, or truly living enough to be born or die. It is more like I said, they wax and wane with the mood that supports them. Slightly repetitive, but I think the point was made. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 19:55:30 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 19:55:30 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secre?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182390 Pippin wrote: > Nagini could have smelled Harry and Hermione while they had the cloak on, but presumably Harry would smell like the Muggle he was impersonating, not like the boy Nagini had met in the graveyard. > > I suppose Nagini was lurking in the graveyard until she saw them put flowers on the grave and pull on the silvery cloak. Then she went and got Bathilda's body (ugh!) and followed them by scent to the Potter house. But I don't think she could be sure it was Harry until she spoke to him in parseltongue and he answered her. Carol responds: I think that Steve is right about Nagini's infrared vision, which enables her to see through Invisibility Cloaks despite the cataracts on Bathilda's eyes. I agree that her speaking to Harry in Parseltongue was the test to determine whether this seeming Muggle was "Potter," but Hermione's conjuring a wreath for Harry to put on the Potters' grave was also a clue. She would have gone from the graveyard to the Potters' ruined cottage next, expecting him and his companion to go there. But I don't think that Nagini was hiding in the graveyard as a twelve-foot snake or that she'd been in hiding for months in snake form and somehow got into Bathilda's rotting corpse despite her huge size. Harry mentions Lupin's remark about magic that they'd never seen before, and the Aurors (IIRC) found the signs of Dark magic on Bathilda's body. I think that Voldemort had placed some sort of spell on her to enable her to inhabit Bathilda's tiny body until "Potter" showed up. The neighbors would think that Bathilda was still alive, wandering around the village half-blind and more than half crazy. She wasn't reported as dead or missing until Nagini had abandoned her body after the failed attempt to capture Harry. Carol, wondering whether Voldemort would have been angry with his dear Nagini, Horcrux and surrogate mother or no, if he hadn't been sidetracked by the photo of the merry-faced thief that Harry had dropped From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 21:04:58 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:04:58 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182391 Carol earlier: > > We do have a reason why Lupin doesn't help Harry in OoP or HBP; he's spying on the werewolves. In DH, Harry declines his offer to help them, believing (rightly, IMO) that Lupin's duty to his pregnant wife and unborn child should come before anything else. McGonagall has her duties as teacher, head of Gryffindor House, and deputy headmistress. (Probably DD doesn't want her on the Horcrux hunt, however "sprightly" she was until those four Stunning Spells forced her to use a walking stick for awhile, because he needs her where she is. We see her once dressed as a Muggle, which suggests that she acts as a spy in Muggle London over the summer.) > > Sirius Black has a very good reason for not helping Harry find the Horcruxes; he's dead. So is the paranoid ex-Auror Mad-Eye Moody by the time the Horcrux begins. And so, of course, is Dumbledore (who nevertheless provides indirect aid via Snape and Snape's spy, portrait Phineas). Tonks is newly pregnant with a half-werewolf child and in danger himself from her wacko aunt. And Mrs. Figg is a Squib, for crying out loud. Mr. Weasley quite reasonably helps Ron plan an alibi for missing school, allowing him to go with Harry but not imposing his own company on them. Mrs. Weasley tries, motherlike, to protect them from danger. Everyone is accounted for in some way, and in no case is idiocy the excuse. > > > > Alla responded: > > Absolutely, I quite agree that those are good reasons,I would argue with the degrees of them, but as whole I agree more or less. I would add some bad reasons to that - like adults of Order not questioning Dumbledore nearly enough IMO, BUT that is how many people you listed? > > I counted seven, give or take (oh dear my maths ARE bad), and last time I checked there are much more people in Wizarding World than that. Carol: Of course. But I was talking specifically about Order members with a connection to Harry and their reasons for not helping Harry on his quest (setting aside Dumbledore's secrecy, which kept them from knowing about the Horcruxes). So that's Snape, Dumbledore, Lupin, Black, Mr. and Mrs. Weasley, Mrs. Figg, Mad-Eye, Tonks, and McGonagall accounted for in my post (ten Order members or former Order members, not seven). I could have mentioned Mundungus, but I think it's pretty clear why Harry didn't want him along on the Horcrux hunt, or the mischievous Twins, who aren't much older than Harry (and had their own business to run). As for other Order members, Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Smith are guarding the Dursleys and Kingsley Shacklebolt is protecting the Muggle Prime Minister, Emmeline Vance is dead, Elphias Doge is a dotty old man. I'm not sure what happened to Sturgis Podmore after he was Imperio'd and arrested, but I doubt that Harry wants or needs his help. Alla: > > And also last time I checked Voldemort DID threaten WW as whole. Where are all those people? Carol responds: Some of the more powerful opponents of Voldemort, including Amanda Bones, Barty Crouch Sr., and Rufus Scrimgeour, are dead. I agree with you that the WW should have done more to protect itself (though having Umbridge and the Imperiused Pius Thicknesse in the MoM made it easy for DEs like Yaxley to infiltrate the Ministry). I'd like to have seen more resistance on the part of the Muggle-borns, but they would have their own agenda (their lives and the right to carry a wand) and wouldn't be likely to start hunting for Horcruxes (which, as I've already established, very few people have heard of). Alla: > And yes, I give WW more credit than you seem to and for the reasons that Magpie so eloquently described before, I think the possibility of other people discovering about horcruxes is NOT out of reach at all. > > Regulus' example is a testimony to that IMO. Carol responds: But Regulus is a DE who happened to volunteer his House-Elf to LV and in so doing, accidentally discovered that Voldemort was taking extraordinary measures to protect a gold locket. (If Regulus hadn't ordered Kreacher to return home, Kreacher would have died as Voldie planned and Regulus wouldn't have found out anything.) Whether Regulus's parents, unlike the majority of Wizards, had books on Horcruxes in their home or whether Regulus consulted Borgin and Burke, or however he found out about Horcruxes despite DD's taking the books out of the Hogwarts library some thirty-six years earlier (ca. 1944; Reggie died in 1980), Regulus had a particular reason (LV's treatment of Kreacher) for finding out what was so special about that locket. (You don't need to agree with me that LV must have used the word "Horcrux" to agree that it was a highly unusual situation.) And note that even though he stole a Horcrux, knowing what it was, he couldn't destroy it, and neither could Kreacher. The only other Wizards who came in contact with a Horcrux before Harry destroyed the diary, Bellatrix and Lucius, didn't know what the objects were and would have been more careful with them if they had. And even if they had known what a Horcrux was and wanted to destroy the Horcrux entrusted to them (highly unlikely in Bellatrix's case, at least) they wouldn't know how, any more than Regulus did. As I've said, only advanced DADA students might have encountered the topic of Horcruxes in their reading before DD removed the books from the library and no one younger than Voldemort could have read them there at all. Sure, old books written by now-dead wizards might exist somewhere in the WW (though Bathilda Bagshot obviously didn't mention them in "A History of Magic" or DD would have banned that book), but who besides Dark wizards would have such books in their home libraries? Nor do we see any circulating libraries in the WW. Such books won't be available from Flourish and Blotts, either. It's possible that Borgin and Burkes or some other Knockturn Alley merchant sells them, yet not even the older DEs knew about the Horcruxes. How is anyone on the good side supposed to figure it out? (Possibly the Unspeakables did Horcrux research, but, if so, they kept their findings to themselves.) Unless Dumbledore, who was 115 years old when he died and had certainly read books that few other Wizards (except, perhaps, Grindelwald) had read, informed the Order members (the only people besides the Aurors and Barty Crouch Sr. as head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement who actively opposed Voldemort at any point) about the Horcruxes, I don't see how even the most intelligent Wizard could have figured it out. I'm quite sure that Snape would have if the books had been available to him, but Dumbledore didn't want to put too much information in a basket that often dangled on the arm of Lord Voldemort. But suppose that DD, Snape, and a few trusted Order members had found the ring, the locket, the tiara, and the cup (without alerting Voldemort to the theft of the cup) and somehow destroyed them without Harry's ever entering the Chamber of Secrets. (Hogwarts would still have a Basilisk in the basement, but, oh, well.) And suppose that they could find some other Basilisk or that Fiend-Fyre is controllable. (I don't think so; the point of Fiend-Fyre is that it isn't controllable, and Basilisks are only controllable by Parselmouths, but never mind.) Suppose that Dumbledore found a way to destroy them all and resisted the temptation to put on the ring. (Good thing Frodo didn't offer him the One Ring!) Suppose that Snape, DDM! despite there being no Godric's Hollow murders and no Prophecy, found a way to kill Nagini. There's still the diary, which would not have been at Hogwarts at all had LV not been vaporized and no one except Harry could have destroyed. And, of course, if Harry has a soul bit in his head, that, too, has to be destroyed, and only Harry's self-sacrifice (or his actual death, had he fought back rather than accepting death) can accomplish that. If Harry hadn't, by a chain of circumstances and unintended consequences of actions by various people, become "the one with the power to defeat Voldemort," the discovery and destruction of the Horcruxes would have been much more difficult, and the destruction of the diary perhaps impossible. Carol, who would have liked to see the Order members and the WW in general doing a bit more than wireless broadcasts in DH but thinks that their not figuring out that LV had created even one Horcrux makes perfect sense under the circumstances From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 2 21:08:40 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:08:40 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182392 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Alla: > > ... I would add some bad reasons to that - like adults of > Order not questioning Dumbledore nearly enough IMO, BUT that > is how many people you listed? > > I counted seven, ..., and last time I checked there are much > more people in Wizarding World than that. > > And also last time I checked Voldemort DID threaten WW as whole. > Where are all those people? > > ... > > Alla > bboyminn: In general, I too agree with what Carol said, without Harry and what happens to him, there is no story, or at least not a multi-billion dollar story loved by many millions of readers. Likely, the books would have been no more than a minor schoolboy story. Let me say on the subject in general, that real-life real- world adults are idiots. It's easy, in a sense, to not seem an idiot when you are not involved. Look around the world today, and that much is clear. But when their is a call for action, universally, adults are idiots on both a large and small scale. If you don't believe me, just ask your kids. However, this was not an easy war to fight. First, most had considered Voldemort defeated and gone, why search for clues about a wizard who no longer exists? Only a very few seriously considered that Voldemort might still be around but with his powers broken. Still, being a brilliant wizard, at some point, broken powers can be overcome and restored. So, were is the incentive for anyone to do what Dumbledore did? And how do you make people believe what they don't want to believe. Are they more likely to believe the school head- master or the government? Recent events in our time tell us how easily the public will bow to the wild unsubstantiated stories of the government. (Sorry, don't mean to get real- world political, but it serves as a perfect illustration.) Also, Voldemort played his hand very wisely. He infiltrated the wizard world by stealth and trickery. It would have been so much easier to fight him if he and the DE's had come storming down the center of the street with wands blazing. But how do you fight the war that Voldemort did present? Should Arthur start cursing and killing every one at the Ministry he suspected was a Death Eater, and how are other people at the Ministry suppose to know that he is right? They would likely think Mr. Weasley was corrupted by DE's, and was taking out the Ministry. Naturaly, Mr. Weasley's assult would last about 10 minutes before the Ministry killed him. Dead soldiers don't fight very well. So, they acted like the French Underground. The French Underground was certainly not in a position to confront the Nazis in a full frontal assault. They had neither the manpower nor the fire power for that. They certainly couldn't go to the French police or the French government, who had already bent over and kissed Hitler's...er...perhaps better not to go there. Where were the front lines in this war? Where were the battle grounds? Where was the army? Were, exactly, was Voldemort? Well, in a sense, there was none of these. This was a very back door, skulking in the shadows, slinking through the night, sort of battle. Like the French resistance, it was small battles and small baby steps to keep the occupation disorganized and off kilter until such time that a real force of resistance could be found and deployed. WE don't see this 'shadows' battle because Harry is cut off from it, so he doesn't see it. What Harry doesn't see, we don't see. But just because we don't see it though doesn't mean it's not happening. In the case of the French resistance, it was to hold out until such time as the Americans and the British could mount their invasion. In the case of Harry Potter, it was until Harry found a way, or until such time as outside forces could be rallied to step in, or until internal forces could be sufficiently rallied. But internally, that power should come from the Ministry, but the Ministry was thoroughly co-opted from within. So, not much hope there. Dumbledore, the internationally powerful and respected voice, was dead, so not much hope on that front. Efforts were slowed in the wizard world just as they were slowed in France by the fact that you didn't know who you could trust which made everyone doubt everyone, and that made marshaling a real force of resistance very difficult. In the case of the wizard world, every moment of doubt and hesitation allowed Voldemort to grow stronger, and as he grew stronger, it made forming any resistance that much more difficult. But notice that once Voldemort was out in the open and congregating with his DE's in a single central place, Hogwarts, the wizard world rallied pretty quickly, and did launch a full frontal assault. So, why did adults act like idiots, well, because they were. They were leaderless, and without focus, direction, or clear purpose. I find their actions very true to life. Keep in mind the British wizard world is small, they don't have large standing armies with Generals to guide them, and even if they did, who is to say that Voldemort would not have co-opted them first? It's easy to say, why didn't the adults do something, but what exactly and how? It's not an easy task, especially when the central organizing authority in your world is corrupted by Voldemort. The story is what the story is; like it or not, either way is fine. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 3 01:46:12 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:46:12 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182393 > Carol earlier: > > > > We do have a reason why Lupin doesn't help Harry in OoP or HBP; he's > spying on the werewolves. In DH, Harry declines his offer to help > them, believing (rightly, IMO) that Lupin's duty to his pregnant wife > and unborn child should come before anything else. Magpie: Just to stick in my own opinion here, I don't think he's right that Lupin's wife and unborn child should necessarily come before anything else. I know you're not suggesting this, but I think that implies men who go away to fight a war who have a family are irresponsible. And in this case the war directly effects his wife and child. Families make sacrifices in war time. I think that's where the a lot of the disconnect comes from in DH. On one hand JKR wants your usual kid-centered fantasy where it's up to Harry to do everything, and that's fine. Claiming that Lupin is being irresponsible and trying to run away from his grown up life by following him would fit right into that idea--you don't go on adventures with Peter Pan when you're not the child. However, that doesn't really work when she's also making vague allusions to World War II and the country being taken over. When that happens it becomes not only responsible but expected that intelligent adults will make it their fight. And it's not unusual for people to leave their civilian jobs (or do things outside of work) for it as well. > > Alla: > > ... I would add some bad reasons to that - like adults of > Order not questioning Dumbledore nearly enough IMO, BUT that > is how many people you listed? > > I counted seven, ..., and last time I checked there are much > more people in Wizarding World than that. > > And also last time I checked Voldemort DID threaten WW as whole. > Where are all those people? bboyminn: Let me say on the subject in general, that real-life real- world adults are idiots. It's easy, in a sense, to not seem an idiot when you are not involved. Look around the world today, and that much is clear. But when their is a call for action, universally, adults are idiots on both a large and small scale. If you don't believe me, just ask your kids. Magpie: Why would the kids' views be accurate? Adults say "kids are idiots" too. And sometimes kids are idiots, just as much as adults. But when it comes down to it, resistance movements are led by adults. And kids fighting wars are often being manipulated by adults. Adults and kids are the same beings, only one has been alive longer. They're not really opposing forces. And in a coming of age story, I think you have to be careful about how much you do the "adults are idiots" thing. It's one thing in a Roald Dahl book where the story is basically for young children, but if that's the case here then Harry and all his classmates end the series as idiots. (Ironically, part of the reason adults in the WW often seem so ridiculous is that they are in key ways still children. This is a world where nobody ever really gets out of high school, where nobody's more impressive than your school headmaster, everybody holds on to their childhood relationships and a sporting event for three teenagers is front page news.) And one can accept all this as the set up for this world. But if you call it reality of course it's going to get held to a different standard--and fail. Put this up against a book like World War Z where the world is overrun by armies of zombies. Things fall apart--and then humans all over the world find solutions. Steve: And how do you make people believe what they don't want to believe. Are they more likely to believe the school head- master or the government? Recent events in our time tell us how easily the public will bow to the wild unsubstantiated stories of the government. (Sorry, don't mean to get real- world political, but it serves as a perfect illustration.) Magpie: Bringing in the real world politics doesn't really help you, since yes, there are people who bow to stories in the government, but there are also people who call out those unsubstantiated stories in the government. They try to get the truth out. And none of this stuff applies to our alleged Order of Adult Fighters. I can accept this is what JKR needed for her story. I think it's insulting to call it a realistic depiction of war when she barely sketched out that idea. Especially since by DH I think a lot more people would be ready to believe Voldemort was back and in charge of the government. And even if somebody didn't believe Voldemort himself was in charge jeez, wasn't there enough to fight against anyway? Fudge got forced out because people didn't trust him to stand up to Voldemort and Dark Wizards--aren't they annoyed by the kidnappings and murders? Steve: But how do you fight the war that Voldemort did present? Should Arthur start cursing and killing every one at the Ministry he suspected was a Death Eater, and how are other people at the Ministry suppose to know that he is right? They would likely think Mr. Weasley was corrupted by DE's, and was taking out the Ministry. Naturaly, Mr. Weasley's assult would last about 10 minutes before the Ministry killed him. Dead soldiers don't fight very well. Magpie: See, this is where I don't get how these books are inspiring if this situation is so hopeless. Arthur's an intelligent man who's supposed to, with a group of other intelligent, loyal and accomplished wizards, have been preparing for Voldemort's return for YEARS. But now when it's happening, when his own government where he works is doing this stuff, he's supposed to think, "Well, what am I supposed to do, start cursing everyone? Why would anyone believe me anyway? They'd probably think I was a DE and taking out the Ministry. And then I'd get killed in 10 minutes anyway, and God knows I can't fight when I'm dead. So I'll just give a stern look to that guy who's rounding up innocent Muggleborns and killing them. I can't possibly think of anything else to do, or organize any kind of effective anything until Harry calls." (Naturally when Harry showed up at the Ministry he, Hermione and Ron manage to come up with a plan on the fly and do it.) Steve: So, they acted like the French Underground. The French Underground was certainly not in a position to confront the Nazis in a full frontal assault. They had neither the manpower nor the fire power for that. They certainly couldn't go to the French police or the French government, who had already bent over and kissed Hitler's...er...perhaps better not to go there. Magpie: I think that's insulting to Muggles to suggest these guys are like the French underground. It seems to me more like you'd think they would act like them but they don't. We've seen what Wizards can do. (And their opposing force of DEs are flawed, to say the least.) The real life adults looked at all the questions you asked about what Arthur could do and--as people have done throughout history--found creative solutions. Steve: WE don't see this 'shadows' battle because Harry is cut off from it, so he doesn't see it. What Harry doesn't see, we don't see. But just because we don't see it though doesn't mean it's not happening. Magpie: I think it does mean it's not happening. I can't write in that much of a story when all the information that I see says something else. We actually should see plenty of signs of it. Instead we pretty much see the heads of the resistance and they're not doing this stuff. When Lupin tries to join the shadow battle (what Harry is doing) he's told to go home to his family. Steve: In the case of Harry Potter, it was until Harry found a way, or until such time as outside forces could be rallied to step in, or until internal forces could be sufficiently rallied. Magpie: Pretty much just until Harry found a way--nobody was rallying anybody either. The DEs had a pretty free reign until Harry returned like King Arthur and then everybody ran to fight in the one battle in one building and become war heroes. Steve: But internally, that power should come from the Ministry, but the Ministry was thoroughly co-opted from within. So, not much hope there. Dumbledore, the internationally powerful and respected voice, was dead, so not much hope on that front. Magpie: Hence the view that this is a sad world that doesn't entirely mirror our own. I think Muggles would have had more options. We can be idiots too, but we've got our good points. Steve: So, why did adults act like idiots, well, because they were. They were leaderless, and without focus, direction, or clear purpose. I find their actions very true to life. Magpie: Wow, I'm glad I don't. I would think a world full of adults would have looked at a situation where they were leaderless, without focus, direction or clear purpose and create those things. That's the challenge they faced and they didn't rise to it. It's especially weird that they're supposed to be these things despite the pre- existing group that one would have expected would have provided every one of those things. Of course there's going to be people who don't become heroes, but there's a lot of Muggle heroes to go around in wars. It seems like you're covering both ends--they can't have done anything, but we should also imagine them doing things. Steve: It's easy to say, why didn't the adults do something, but what exactly and how? It's not an easy task, especially when the central organizing authority in your world is corrupted by Voldemort. Magpie: I don't think anybody said it had to be easy. The point is their world is facing a challenge and they didn't respond to it. The Ministry was never much of a good authoritative force--in fact, I thought Wizards were supposed to not like authority anyway. I would have thought this group of people would be especially hard to take over with the way they all carry lethal weapons they're trained to use, disappear at will and spend as much time as they do pranking each other. Harry's school gets taken over by a bad guy in OotP. How could the students get it together? And yet they did. The kids put their mind to the problem and found ways around it. They found other natural resisters. It wasn't all smooth sailing, but both there and in DH there were kids who hoped for a leader and found one. In DH they'd lost Dumbledore and Harry...and then there was Neville. Nobody has this kind of force prepared until they need it. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 3 02:07:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:07:16 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182394 Jenni from Alabama wrote: > > I know that a Corporeal Patronus will repel a dementor... but I don't remember ever reading about one actually killing a dementor. Can dementors be killed or are they immortal? bboyminn replied: > > Despite the Dementors somewhat vaguely human-ish form, I don't think they are born (in the normal sense) or that they die. I think it more likely that they wax and wane with the mood of the times. > > During better times the 100 or so Dementors are content to remain at Azkaban and feed off their Ministry supplied prey. But as Voldemort returns and times become darker, and the Dementors are given more free rein, I think their numbers begin to multiply. Once the dark battles are ended and people are more pleased and in less of a dark mood, their number start to fade. > > Like most creatures their numbers rise and fall with the availability of food. When the world is in a dark mood they feed of that darkness multiplying themselves and exaggerating the mood that supports them. Again, as the dark mood fades, the food supply dries up, and the Dementor numbers fade. Carol responds: I started to reply earlier, but Yahoo!mort ate my post (it has Dementorish tendencies ), so I'll try again. I more or less agree with Steve although Dementors flourishing in dark times again brings up the question of where they find happiness or excitement to feed on. Since Dementors are not and have never been human (they're much taller, have featureless faces with only a gaping hole for a mouth, create a sense of cold and despair by their mere presence, and don't require food in a normal sense--neither emotions nor souls have substance, Horcruxes or no Horcruxes), I don't think that they can be born or die in a normal sense. I envision them "breeding" in a figurative sense, manifesting out of a cloud of fog when people feel despair and returning to nothingness (unless they have a plentiful supply of happiness to leach out of their victims and the prospect of an occasional soul to suck, as at Azkaban), rather like a vanished object in the Ravenclaw riddle in DH. (I'm sure that there are no male and female Dementors pairing off and raising families of Dementorlings.) In both PoA and OoP the Dementors seem to be repelled by Harry's Patronus, but in PoA, they return to their posts while Harry is unconscious, and in OoP, the swoop away, defeated. Harry sees the second one fade into the darkness, but I don't think that it's disintegrating, only retreating. (Harry is lucky, of course, that there are only two, but I don't think that Umbridge wanted them to suck his soul; she only wanted them to force him to cast a corporeal Patronus so that he could be tried and expelled--and DD discredited.) I don't think, BTW, that Dementors are "creatures" in the sense of Beasts; they're not in FB, at any rate. And even though they have "near-human intelligence," as Umbridge would say (and can somehow communicate with humans though we never see or hear them doing it), I can't see even the most fanatical supporter or Beings' Rights proposing them for representation in the MoM. Maybe they aren't Beings (like goblins or House-Elves) at all; maybe they're Spirits (the Department of magical Creatures has Beast, Being, and Spirit divisions). Carol, heading to the kitchen for a Milky Way (it's too warm for hot chocolate) after examining Dementors at close range From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 3 02:30:57 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:30:57 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182395 Carol earlier: > > > > > > We do have a reason why Lupin doesn't help Harry in OoP or HBP; he's spying on the werewolves. In DH, Harry declines his offer to help them, believing (rightly, IMO) that Lupin's duty to his pregnant wife and unborn child should come before anything else. > Magpie responded: > Just to stick in my own opinion here, I don't think he's right that Lupin's wife and unborn child should necessarily come before anything else. I know you're not suggesting this, but I think that implies men who go away to fight a war who have a family are irresponsible. And in this case the war directly effects his wife and child. Families make sacrifices in war time. When [the country is being taken over] it becomes not only responsible but expected that intelligent adults will make it their fight. And it's not unusual for people to leave their civilian jobs (or do things outside of work) for it as well. Carol again: Not that Lupin has a civilian job to return to--he's unemployable in the new regime and his cover as a spy has been blown. Tonks can't work, either, since she's being specifically targeted along with him for marrying a werewolf. It's imperative to keep her and their half-werewolf child safe. However, there's no reason why he couldn't be a member of some sort of resistance movement (as I think most of us originally imagined the Order to be. He doesn't have to go with HRH (who as "adults" in the WW's eyes don't really need an older companion any longer). I doubt whether he'd have had any better success in finding Horcruxes than the Trio did (or in obtaining the means of destroying them). But he could make sure that other Order members and their families are safe (he'd make a fine Secret Keeper), occasionally appear on Lee Jordan's wireless broadcasts (as he does), and otherwise do what he can until his services as a fighter are actually called for. When they are, he shows up and gives his all for the cause (and for the small son who will never know him). Carol, who thinks that the problem is not that we see no adult Horcrux hunters (except DD in HBP) but that the Order members and other adults in the WW can't find more effective ways of their own to hinder LV's rise to power while Harry is out on his mission for Dumbledore From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 3 02:56:49 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:56:49 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182397 > Carol responds: > > I started to reply earlier, but Yahoo!mort ate my post (it has > Dementorish tendencies ), so I'll try again. Potioncat: YahooMort did seem to have a lot of fun on April Fools' Day. >Carol: > Since Dementors are not and have never been human (they're much > taller, have featureless faces with only a gaping hole for a mouth, > create a sense of cold and despair by their mere presence, and don't > require food in a normal sense--neither emotions nor souls have > substance, Horcruxes or no Horcruxes), I don't think that they can be > born or die in a normal sense. Potioncat: I wonder what happened to them after LV's real downfall. That is, what did the MoM do about them and how did they go about it? I wouldn't think they'd be recruited for Azkaban again. Going off in search of left over Easter chocolate myself. That is, if such a thing exists. From dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 3 02:15:53 2008 From: dragonkeeper012003 at yahoo.com (dragonkeeper) Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 19:15:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <705122.9975.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182398 Someone in the past must have found a way to control the Dementors with a charm or spell at one time and then figured a way to use them for the benefit of the witch world and if they figured a way to control them then they must have found a way to kill them. My question involves how the ministry can control the Dementors? What do they use to control the Dementors and if they know how to control the Dementors then they must also know a way to kill the Dementors should things go awry. dragonkeeper From k12listmomma at comcast.net Thu Apr 3 15:04:01 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:04:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can dementors actually be killed? References: <705122.9975.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <00c701c8959b$f42760b0$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 182399 > Someone in the past must have found a way to control the Dementors > with a charm or spell at one time and then figured a way to use > them for the benefit of the witch world and if they figured a way > to control them then they must have found a way to kill them. > > My question involves how the ministry can control the Dementors? > What do they use to control the Dementors and if they know how > to control the Dementors then they must also know a way to kill > the Dementors should things go awry. > > dragonkeeper I have often wondered what they did with all those dementors. It was said that London and other parts of England had a fog and a chill over it, indicating that the Dementors were breeding. If they were breeding, then how do you control them? What is the natural enemy of the Dementor, or the force that causes their numbers to be reduced? Would the society turning to more cheerful thoughts mean they would die off some for lack of "food"? Clearly, the fear of Voldemort and the unhappy mood that he was causing was only helping the Dementors multiply, but what is the force that causes some of them to die off, starve, or have their numbers reduced? It seems to me that if the Dementors could attack Dudley and attempt to kill him (well, to be more accurate, suck out his soul), then a large amount of Dementors still in existence would mean a continued threat for all Muggles, even after Voldemort had died for good. Wizards would have a way of protecting themselves, but the Muggles would be totally helpless. What would stop the Dementors from just using Muggles as a new, unlimited food source? Shelley From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 3 19:50:33 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:50:33 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182400 > Magpie: > Pretty much just until Harry found a way--nobody was rallying anybody either. The DEs had a pretty free reign until Harry returned like King Arthur and then everybody ran to fight in the one battle in one building and become war heroes. Pippin: It looks from the emphasis on Harry's pov as if the adults left the kids to fight the war, but that's not actually what happens. One may overlook that other people have been growing up too, and that Neville, and the majority of the DA are adults in their own and society's eyes by the time of the final battle. But the story makes that explicit. Over the course of the story, the Trio tried several times to rally the DA, but only Luna, Neville and Ginny responded. As kids, most of the DA didn't see the war against Voldemort as their fight, and the text does not fault them -- they joined the DA so they could pass their OWLs and no blame to them. But as adults they did respond as soon as they were called for. I'm seeing an unstated assumption that bothers me in some of the posts I've read -- as if revolutions were spontaneous and success was the birthright of decent people. As if no tyrant ever stayed in power five minutes before Che Guevera and the Rebel Alliance showed up to pull down statues in Tienamen Square. That's not even fictional reality. In RL as in fiction, revolutions can fail, some that succeed are no better than the regimes they supplanted, and some never begin at all. In the Lord of the Rings, most of the hobbits were at the mercy of Sharky and his men till Frodo and his friends came back. Why didn't the hobbits fight back sooner? Farmer Cotton explains that he wanted to, but folks wouldn't help and he had his wife and daughter to think of. We're shown why folks wouldn't help -- they didn't trust each other. And they had reason. Like all people in tyranny's grasp, they'd had to make compromises to survive. That truth is put gently in LOTR. In canon, it's in your face and people have to deal with it, readers and characters alike, unless, like Elphias Doge, they're determined to believe only good about their friends. Sirius tells us how it's going to be: "Imagine that Voldemort's powerful now. You don't know who his supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't; you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. You're scared for yourself, and your family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more disappearances, more torturing...the Ministry of Magic's in disarray, they don't know what to do, they're trying to keep everything hidden from the Muggles, but meanwhile Muggles are dying too. Terror everywhere...panic...confusion...that's how it used to be. Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst in others." --Sirius Black, GoF ch 27 Substitute "The Order" for "The Ministry" and his words speak to the situation in DH. But Sirius oversimplified a bit, because what we learned in DH is that times like that bring out the best and the worst in each individual soul. Perhaps the Order was in as much disarray as the Ministry was in VWI. But maybe not. We do know that the townspeople and the others showed up when they were summoned, ready, willing and able to fight. Either they didn't need to be organized, or they had been organizing in secret all along. One of Voldemort's great weaknesses was his tendency to overconfidence. Did the Order play to that by letting him think he was having free rein until Harry was ready to confront him? Harry, with his built-in connection to Voldemort, is the last person the Order would have wanted to know. It's not part of the story, and we're free to speculate. But I don't see how we're forced to conclude that the Order should have been doing something they didn't do -- when it came time to fight, there were fighters available. They hadn't all been rounded up and thrown into Azkaban, or deprived of their wands, or forced into hiding in Australia. Who deserves credit for that if the Order doesn't? > Magpie: In DH they'd lost Dumbledore and Harry...and then there was Neville. Nobody has this kind of force prepared until they need it. > Pippin: What did Neville do that the Order didn't? He was able to help some but not all of the people who were being hunted, he put out a bit of rebel propaganda, and he resisted openly until his family was threatened, whereupon he had to give it up and go into hiding like the others. When Harry asked for his help, he summoned the people he thought would be willing to help, and they came. As far as I can see, The Order did exactly the same things. I can see where it seems stupid that if there were all these people willing to help they couldn't have helped Harry more directly. But how could he rally them to help when he himself wasn't sure he could trust Dumbledore, and yet the only credibility he had was Dumbledore's authority and a prophecy he didn't understand? Harry had Frodo's problem also -- those he didn't know, he couldn't trust, and those he could trust were too dear to him. He didn't want his friends to die to help him, and yet who else could he ask? As for Lupin, how could he possibly trust Lupin, when it was clear as day that Lupin didn't even trust himself? Harry could not have built a "coalition of love" when he himself hadn't yet learned to distinguish between righteous anger and vengefulness. Nor was Hogwarts prepared to join it. "And we must unite inside her/or we'll crumple from within" was not an appeal to love. It was an appeal to fear ::forehead slap:: and so of course it failed. When the Houses are ready to join as they once did, in friendship based on the recognition of their similarities instead of the fear of their common foes, why then perhaps they'll be united once again. We can see Harry trying, in a small way, to make that happen. I can see where we might have hoped for more out of Harry's vaunted power of love. I did. But no one can make people love one another. You can't even make them love you back. Far greater proponents of love than Harry Potter have discovered that. I shudda known. I can see where some people might feel that Harry has no right to be content with himself if so much still needs to be done. But I hear in the epilogue the voice of JKR, the depression survivor, saying loud and clear that though you may have to go through hurt and sorrow to become healthy, healthy people don't beat themselves up just because things aren't the way it's s'posed to be in fairy tales. Pippin From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 3 21:27:55 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:27:55 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182401 Carol: However, there's no reason why he couldn't be a member of some sort of resistance movement (as I think most of us originally imagined the Order to be. He doesn't have to go with HRH (who as "adults" in the WW's eyes don't really need an older companion any longer). I doubt whether he'd have had any better success in finding Horcruxes than the Trio did (or in obtaining the means of destroying them). Magpie: True, he doesn't have to be on the Horcrux hunt. There are plenty of things he could do other than that, if JKR had written that kind of part for the Order, but she didn't, really. Everything seems focused on Harry. Which seems to be what she wanted. > > Magpie: > > Pretty much just until Harry found a way--nobody was rallying > anybody either. The DEs had a pretty free reign until Harry returned > like King Arthur and then everybody ran to fight in the one battle in > one building and become war heroes. > > Pippin: > > It looks from the emphasis on Harry's pov as if the adults left the > kids to fight the war, but that's not actually what happens. One may > overlook that other people have been growing up too, and that Neville, > and the majority of the DA are adults in their own and society's > eyes by the time of the final battle. But the story makes that explicit. Magpie: We've pretty much all been using the shorthand of "kids" to refer to Harry's generation and "adults" to mean those out of school. The same distinction that's been made throughout canon. Pippin: > I'm seeing an unstated assumption that bothers me in some of the > posts I've read -- as if revolutions were spontaneous and success was > the birthright of decent people. As if no tyrant ever stayed in > power five minutes before Che Guevera and the Rebel Alliance showed > up to pull down statues in Tienamen Square. That's not even fictional > reality. In RL as in fiction, revolutions can fail, some that succeed > are no better than the regimes they supplanted, and some never begin > at all. Magpie: I didn't assume that. I think the point that I, and I think Alla and Betsy, have made was not at all that everybody was guaranteed any sort of success. Just that it's not guaranteed that they couldn't have had any success against him, or that they couldn't have behaved any differently or tried anything else. Voldemort's revolution went very well, as it happens. We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where everyone was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but wait for Harry. And that this was playing it like a realistic war story. Pippin: > In the Lord of the Rings, most of the hobbits were at the mercy of > Sharky and his men till Frodo and his friends came back. Why didn't > the hobbits fight back sooner? Farmer Cotton explains that he wanted > to, but folks wouldn't help and he had his wife and daughter to think > of. We're shown why folks wouldn't help -- they didn't trust > each other. And they had reason. Like all people in tyranny's grasp, > they'd had to make compromises to survive. Magpie: Tolkien puts more thought into the Scouring of the Shire, even while having the four hobbits who have seen the world come back to be leaders imo. The Wizarding World are in so many ways not the hobbits of the Shire. And the group of the Order of the Phoenix is supposed to have been preparing for this for a decade. They're walk around acting as if they're doing stuff in the book, they all of the air of someone grimly facing the enemy, but they aren't given anything to do, really. I don't think that's a case of LOTR putting the case gently while HP puts it in your face. There's nothing gentle about the Scouring of the Shire. I think Tolkien's situation is just more believable based on the history and characters he created while in HP the war just isn't as well thought out. Tolkien was interested in writing about war and JKR wasn't. So she wrote about a fight and added on some things that sounded like wartime without really thinking it all through. Which is all fine. Nobody's reading HP for Tolkien's kind of warfare. I just don't call it a book about war. Pippin: > "Imagine that Voldemort's powerful now. You don't know who his > supporters are, you don't know who's working for him and who isn't; > you know he can control people so that they do terrible things without > being able to stop themselves. You're scared for yourself, and your > family, and your friends. Every week, news comes of more deaths, more > disappearances, more torturing...the Ministry of Magic's in disarray, > they don't know what to do, they're trying to keep everything hidden > from the Muggles, but meanwhile Muggles are dying too. Terror > everywhere...panic...confusion...that's how it used to be. > > Well, times like that bring out the best in some people and the worst > in others." --Sirius Black, GoF ch 27 > > > Substitute "The Order" for "The Ministry" and his words speak to the > situation in DH. But Sirius oversimplified a bit, because what we > learned in DH is that times like that bring out the best and the worst > in each individual soul. > Perhaps the Order was in as much disarray as the Ministry was > in VWI. But maybe not. Magpie: The Order wasn't in disarray at all. Pippin:> We do know that the townspeople and the others > showed up when they were summoned, ready, willing and able to fight. > Either they didn't need to be organized, or they had been organizing > in secret all along. Magpie: Slughorn and Charlie showing up with a crowd for the crowd-pleasing ending doesn't read to me like anybody was organizing. It reads like we need a big battle and of course all the good people rally to Harry's side. As I said, it's fine, but I think it is what it is. It's all focused on Hogwarts. That's the place where the struggle is thought out and things are going on where Harry can't see them. Pippin: > One of Voldemort's great weaknesses was his tendency to > overconfidence. Did the Order play to that by letting him think he was > having free rein until Harry was ready to confront him? Harry, with > his built-in connection to Voldemort, is the last person the Order > would have wanted to know. Magpie: That's a bit too creative to me--nobody needed to let Voldemort steamroller over them in order to get him overconfident. (Nor does anyone suggest they're doing that.) (Is this also why the Order seemed to politely give Voldemort a lot of time to get strong before they kicked into gear themselves?) Pippin: But I don't > see how we're forced to conclude that the Order should have been doing > something they didn't do -- when it came time to fight, there were > fighters available. They hadn't all been rounded up and thrown into > Azkaban, or deprived of their wands, or forced into hiding in > Australia. Who deserves credit for that if the Order doesn't? Magpie: I haven't been concluding they should have been doing anything. I said that I disagreed that the Order could have done nothing differently--beginning with the idea that if Snape hadn't delivered the Prophecy there's absolutely no way at all a fatal blow against Voldemort could be struck given the things in this fictional world. The Order does exactly what they need to do for the plot, which is to give Harry information, act like everything is very serious and dire, and then step into the wings so the boy hero can complete his quest since that's what this story is about--not a complicated war waged by hundreds of Wizards on each side. But if you asked random readers: What would you have done if you were facing this situation and were leading the Order of the Phoenix? I would expect you'd get lots of creative answers that didn't match canon. > > Magpie: > In DH they'd lost Dumbledore and Harry...and then there was Neville. > Nobody has this kind of force prepared until they need it. > > > > Pippin: > What did Neville do that the Order didn't? Magpie: He seemed to have set up a far more sophisticated system of protecting people and getting them to safety at Hogwarts, actually, in different ways. And Neville is still a schoolboy standing up to mean teachers. One might have thought the Order was supposed to do a lot of things that Neville didn't. There's no indication that the Order is even the Neville of the World Outside Hogwarts. Pippin: > I can see where it seems stupid that if there were all these people > willing to help they couldn't have helped Harry more directly. But how > could he rally them to help when he himself wasn't sure he could trust > Dumbledore, and yet the only credibility he had was Dumbledore's > authority and a prophecy he didn't understand? Magpie: I don't see why that was a problem when it came to Horcruxes. Pippin: > Harry had Frodo's problem also -- those he didn't know, he couldn't > trust, and those he could trust were too dear to him. He didn't want > his friends to die to help him, and yet who else could he ask? As for > Lupin, how could he possibly trust Lupin, when it was clear as day > that Lupin didn't even trust himself? Magpie: Of course he could have asked his friends to help him-he has his dearest with him the whole time. Or the Order--one might have expected Dumbledore to have asked them. He certainly could have trusted Lupin--Lupin "not trusting himself" sounds tragic and all, but it's not like hunting objects and destroying him would be beyond him. Another person might have had *Dumbledore* approach the Horcrux problem a different way. That's essentially what started the thread, I think. He's the general. -m From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Apr 4 02:24:17 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 02:24:17 -0000 Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182402 > Carol responds: > OTOH, judging by his old Potions book, he was not averse to writing in > his books, and his marginalia would be very interesting. Potioncat: Perhaps because we spent so little time at Hogwarts during DH, I was thinking of Snape's office that he used as Potion Master and DADA instructor. I'd forgotten that his office has been the Headmaster's office. Although I imagine his old one was not turned over to Carrow. So there's likely two offices of material. As you pointed out, his DADA term ended abruptly, as did his year as Headmaster. So I'm sure he was very careful at what he left there. Taking some time to clear out anything questionable. But your idea of notes on new spells is a good one. I left the one sentence above because I couldn't really pinpoint a section to resond to, and I fell in love with the word marginalia. Oh what a perfect word. Just to be sure, I looked it up to see if you made it up, but no. It's been around for a while. Are you familiar with it because you taught or because you edit? Can't wait to use it and make my kids roll their eyes. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 03:50:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 03:50:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182403 Carol earlier: > > > OTOH, judging by his old Potions book, he was not averse to writing in his books, and his marginalia would be very interesting. Potioncat: > Perhaps because we spent so little time at Hogwarts during DH, I was thinking of Snape's office that he used as Potion Master and DADA instructor. I'd forgotten that his office has been the Headmaster's office. Although I imagine his old one was not turned over to Carrow. So there's likely two offices of material. > > As you pointed out, his DADA term ended abruptly, as did his year as Headmaster. So I'm sure he was very careful at what he left there. Taking some time to clear out anything questionable. But your idea of notes on new spells is a good one. > > I left the one sentence above because I couldn't really pinpoint a section to resond to, and I fell in love with the word marginalia. Oh what a perfect word. Just to be sure, I looked it up to see if you made it up, but no. It's been around for a while. Are you familiar with it because you taught or because you edit? Can't wait to use it and make my kids roll their eyes. Carol responds: Right. He used the Potions office even when he was DADA instructor. It was still full of jars with creatures suspended in solution, and he even gave Harry a Potions-related detention (sorting rotten Flobberworms from good ones) in HBP despite being DADA teacher. Either he was still interested in the subject and still brewing potions of his own or he was, er, helping Slughorn out. (Somebody had to sort those worms, right? ) I don't think he would give the office that had also been his living quarters to Carrow. Probably he gave it to Slughorn, who, after all, was Potions master now, and gave the office that had been used by the previous DADA teachers (and possibly by Slughorn the precious year) to Carrow. If so, he would have transferred all his books and potions and so forth to the headmaster's office. Or did he just leave it vacant, still full of his potions and "stores" (potion ingredients)? Maybe he still slept there, in his old private quarters, not feeling at home in the office that had been Dumbledore's since before he was born. As for his books, I don't suppose he had much time for reading after he became headmaster. At any rate, if a hypothetical biographer (not Rita Skeeter, please!) were to examine snape's books, he or she would need to look in three places, the headmaster's office (where they might find only Dumbledore's books), Snape's old office, and the house at Spinner's End, where he may have kept a large number of books that he didn't have time to read during the school year. and every one of them would need to be examined carefully for Snape's marginal notes in the hope of finding some snarky comment along the lines of "Just shove a Bezoar down their throat." I encountered the term "marginalia" frequently when I was a graduate student. Literary biographers and literary critics frequently study the marginalia of dead authors because it reveals their thought processes at least as well or better than their letters and journals. Whole books have been published containing, for example, Coleridge's marginalia, which throw light on how he interpreted those books and how they affected his own writing and thinking. (Sorry, but I have Coleridge on the brain because of "the willing suspension of disbelief," which is his phrase.) Carol, who also writes in her books (only her own books!) or used to, and found it quite useful in both studying and teaching (and occasionally cathartic in responding to an idiotic author) From moosiemlo at gmail.com Fri Apr 4 05:12:28 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 22:12:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0804032212qaa55e1bs56e78c13cf319e35@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182404 Pippin: > One of Voldemort's great weaknesses was his tendency to > overconfidence. Did the Order play to that by letting him think he was > having free rein until Harry was ready to confront him? Harry, with > his built-in connection to Voldemort, is the last person the Order > would have wanted to know. Magpie: That's a bit too creative to me--nobody needed to let Voldemort steamroller over them in order to get him overconfident. (Nor does anyone suggest they're doing that.) (Is this also why the Order seemed to politely give Voldemort a lot of time to get strong before they kicked into gear themselves?) Lynda: Now to me, what Pippin wrote above is exactly what I percieve from Rowling's text. Unquestionably. Without any doubts. Whenever I read the book that's what I percieve and since there were six books prior to DH that I really liked that were leading me to that ending I'm fine with it. Does that mean that had I written the story of Mr. Harry Potter: Wizard I would have ended it in the same way? No. Not precisely anyway although good would have won over evil and Lord Thingy would be vanished, but having read the story as it progressed through seven volumes I was pretty well pleased with what Ms. Rowling did with the story and the way she did it--realizing of course that you also finished the story and it didn't hit the rubbish pile before you were done or even afterwords. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Apr 4 11:43:29 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 11:43:29 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182405 > Anita: > 2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the house > in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry finally > sees his family home? Potioncat: The scene itself was very moving, especially since wizarding folk were leaving messages of support. The enchantments on the house and statue showed how wizards and Muggles could live side-by-side yet not really know each other. And it's made me wonder what the memorials in my area might look like with magic-eyes. But I found it hard to believe that no one ever said anything to Harry about the house and statue during his Hogwarts days. It made for a better scene that he didn't know, of course, just sort of hard to believe. > > 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the > Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through > Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? > Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the > ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing? > Potioncat: > 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of Bathilda > is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we all have > the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms for you on > the first read? 6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is really > the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a warning > to Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong? Potioncat: I tell myself it was because I was reading all in one marathon event. It would be so nice to have savored the book, and taken time between chapters to consider the plot and characters. But, no, I didn't catch on. I hope if I ever apply for a home health nursing position, that the resume doesn't ask how I evaluated this elderly patient's needs. There were so many clues that she wouldn't have been walking around. And even afterwards, I didn't catch on that she had been an Inferius until someone brought it up on list. I thought somehow that Nagini was doing the magic to move her around. > > 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most > grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to > the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda? Potioncat: I think I've managed to supress that--or is it repress it? Well, I'm not looking forward to the scene in TMTMNBN...Oh, wait. Yes I am. My oldest won't see it coming! This will be fun. > > 9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for > seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's > destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations? What > did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that > much of this has been discussed.) Potioncat: At first I thought they were so stupid for not carrying the wands with them. I mean, Molly keeps her in her apron. But you know, you get comfortable, if not content. And to set it down for just a moment. I expected a duel between James and LV, like Harry had, only not successful. It's still true though, that James faced LV bravely. > > 10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the > Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. How > reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case? Potioncat: I gave that some thought. And maybe it's possible in the same way that we sometimes mis-remember things. But in this case, I think it's an accurate memory. > > 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the > vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too > trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed > constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and > Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's > relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night? Potioncat: What does it say about Bathilda that she kept that photograph, given who her nephew becomes? Is it the love of the boy? How has she looked at the photo all these years, knowing how that friendship will turn out? I never picked up on the photo of one failed friendship so close to the memory of the results of another failed friendship. Good catch. (But I don't have an anser.) Thanks Anita, for the summary and questions. Good job on a difficult chapter! From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Apr 4 16:29:42 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:29:42 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: <2795713f0804032212qaa55e1bs56e78c13cf319e35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182406 > Magpie: > That's a bit too creative to me--nobody needed to let Voldemort > steamroller over them in order to get him overconfident. (Nor does > anyone suggest they're doing that.) (Is this also why the Order > seemed to politely give Voldemort a lot of time to get strong before > they kicked into gear themselves?) > > Lynda: > > Now to me, what Pippin wrote above is exactly what I percieve from Rowling's > text. Unquestionably. Without any doubts. Magpie: You read that the Order was intentionally not doing anything because the plan was to wait until Voldemort got as strong as he could be and then keep him overconfident (with a couple of references to spying that never yield any information we hear about)? Is there any indication that the Order has organized themselves to make Voldemort confident, or that their doing so has any effect on him whatsoever? He honestly doesn't seem to care one way or the other. He's confident because he thinks he's immortal, which the Order doesn't know. Not that they couldn't have had that plan, since it does at least obviously fit what they're doing. But it still adds up to not having a resistance movement at all--and not because the resistance movement is in confusion. (The one thing we do see them doing is coming up with a radio show that says Harry will do something.) But Pippin also said that Neville did nothing the Order didn't do, comparing the two to each other, and Neville is doing the opposite of this. He's not going along with the DEs to make them confident, he's making things better for the students and finding ways around their methods and standing up to them and writing graffiti about Dumbledore's Army and trying to steal the sword. So either they're doing stuff or they're not. If their plan is not to do stuff then that's their plan. But it's a plan of keeping themselves out of trouble, not an Underground movement that's runnign their own side war. Some readers might still see other plans as being better things to do or think back up plans would make sense. -m From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri Apr 4 16:45:28 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 16:45:28 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182407 > > Magpie: > We've pretty much all been using the shorthand of "kids" to refer to > Harry's generation and "adults" to mean those out of school. The > same distinction that's been made throughout canon. Pippin: Yes, JKR makes us think of them as kids, but they're not kids in the eyes of their society (except for Molly.) Umbridge pretends to think they're just kids, but remember, her real fear is that Dumbledore is training them to be fighting force. That paradox forces us to see an ancient truth with new eyes: "War violates the order of nature and causes parents to bury their children "-- Herodotus. The senior generation did what they could, IMO, but it's always been the younger generation that's had to fight wars. JKR makes us feel again how wrong and unfair that is, as if we'd never known it before. That's what good fantasy is supposed to do. > Magpie: > We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where everyone was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but wait for Harry. And that this was playing it like a realistic war story. Pippin: I don't see how you can acknowledge that in real life there are times when people feel they are paralyzed and powerless to do anything, and yet say that if JKR puts that in her story, it's not realistic. > Magpie: > The Order wasn't in disarray at all. Pippin: Excuse me? The enemy leader is invulnerable, their government has fallen in a silent coup, they've been horribly betrayed, Voldemort knows all their identities, two of their leaders have been killed one after the other, they've been ambushed, and they have no idea how the enemy is learning their plans. Their last instruction from Dumbledore was that Harry is their best hope. Harry says he has instructions from Dumbledore, he trusts them all, but he can't tell them what he's doing. If that's not disarray, what is? They're not fighting a conventional war where there's lots of ways to cripple the enemy. The only way to destroy Voldemort's war machine is to destroy Voldemort. They have no idea how that's to be done, but apparently Harry does. If they don't trust Dumbledore or Harry any more, they're going to feel even more betrayed and powerless for ever trusting them in the first place. They're not going to feel they can do something new -- not for a long time, anyway. > > Pippin: > > I can see where it seems stupid that if there were all these people willing to help they couldn't have helped Harry more directly. But how could he rally them to help when he himself wasn't sure he could trust Dumbledore, and yet the only credibility he had was Dumbledore's authority and a prophecy he didn't understand? > > Magpie: > I don't see why that was a problem when it came to Horcruxes. Pippin: Harry: I don't believe in Dumbledore's plan, because otherwise I would have kept this secret like he wanted, but he said I have to round up all these horcrux thingies and destroy them. I've decided I'm too much of a wimp, so I'd rather you lot did it. I should tell you that they may be cursed, some of them are incredibly precious objects that are heavily guarded, and they can possess anybody who isn't filled with the power of love. Oh, and the prophesy says I have to be the one to kill Voldemort, unless he kills me first, except Dumbledore said it doesn't mean that unless I think it does. But Voldemort can't be killed till we get rid of the horcrux thingies, so while you're out risking yournecks and being turned into zombies, I'll just, um, hang around the burrow with Ginny and snog, shall I? Right! Somehow I don't think the Order would be inspired. They'd have no real reason to keep trusting in Dumbledore's plans if Harry didn't, not after what happened with Snape. Besides which, Harry's habit of saying "Voldemort" would have gotten them all killed. > Magpie: > Of course he could have asked his friends to help him-he has his > dearest with him the whole time. Pippin: Sorry, no. Ginny is Harry's Weezy now. And he didn't ask Ron and Hermione to help him, they insisted. Magpie: Or the Order--one might have > expected Dumbledore to have asked them. He certainly could have > trusted Lupin--Lupin "not trusting himself" sounds tragic and all, > but it's not like hunting objects and destroying him would be beyond > him. Pippin: ::boggles:: Look at what the locket was able to make of Ron's perfectly normal insecurities, and then ask yourself what it would do to Lupin. Even Harry could bring out the wolf with a well-chosen insult or two. What a horcrux could manage, I dread to think. Magpie: Another person might have had *Dumbledore* approach the Horcrux > problem a different way. That's essentially what started the thread, > I think. He's the general. Pippin: You don't think it's realistic to have a spymaster whose passion for secrecy creates problems for his own organization? Or who would have turned to a young person to do the impossible? As I've already pointed out, there was a real life Admiral who chose young people when she had to prove the impossible wasn't. I see I neglected to mention why. They were smart and gifted kids, but it wasn't because they were more gifted than their older counterparts. It was because they didn't have the training or experience to know what couldn't be done -- so they did it. As of the end of HBP, the horcrux task looked hopeless to most of us. There's a good chance the Order would have viewed it the same way. Of course Harry did need an incredible amount of luck to succeed, despite the horcruxes not being as well-protected as Voldemort thought -- but how else do you win against the odds? Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 18:19:43 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:19:43 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182408 > >>Pippin: > > "War violates the order of nature and causes parents to bury their > children "-- Herodotus. > The senior generation did what they could, IMO, but it's always been > the younger generation that's had to fight wars. Betsy Hp: Except in this story, the older generation did nothing, died, and left their kid to fix everything. I mean, Harry's parents didn't even have the presence of mind to arm themselves. And we're supposed to believe it's the child burying his parents (well, at least having his parents die) that made Harry so superduper special he could take down Voldemort. (Who apparently didn't kill anyone elses parents. But was still really, really scary. And unstoppable.) The younger generation of this story didn't fight any war. They followed their parent's lead: stick your head really far up your ass and call for Harry. > >>> Magpie: > > We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where everyone > > was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but wait for Harry. > > And that this was playing it like a realistic war story. > >>Pippin: > I don't see how you can acknowledge that in real life there are > times when people feel they are paralyzed and powerless to do > anything, and yet say that if JKR puts that in her story, it's not > realistic. Betsy Hp: What was unrealistic was JKR had an *entire nation* be paralyzed and powerless. For *years*. An Auror or an Order member or any number of WW soldiers feel paralyzed and powerless a time or two? Sure, I can see that. That they *all* feel paralyzed and powerless and that's all she wrote? Lame, lame, totally lame. And also, not believeable. IMO. > >>Pippin: > They're not fighting a conventional war where there's lots of ways > to cripple the enemy. The only way to destroy Voldemort's war > machine is to destroy Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: Conventional or not, generally one wins a war by engaging the enemy. It's a wacky idea, I know, but maybe if the Order (or the Aurors) had fought against Voldemort and his Death Eaters? Maybe they'd have figured something out? I know, I know. Voldemort's really, really scary. And unstoppable. Which makes me wonder who the rube was running around declaiming and being a giant joke in DH. But that's me. > >>Pippin: > > I can see where it seems stupid that if there were all these > > people willing to help they couldn't have helped Harry more > > directly. But how could he rally them to help when he himself > > wasn't sure he could trust Dumbledore, and yet the only > > credibility he had was Dumbledore's authority and a prophecy he > > didn't understand? > >>Magpie: > > I don't see why that was a problem when it came to Horcruxes. > >>Pippin: > Harry: I don't believe in Dumbledore's plan, because otherwise I > would have kept this secret like he wanted, but he said I have to > round up all these horcrux thingies and destroy them. > Betsy Hp: See, this strikes me as such a cult of personality. Harry is supposed to blindly trust Dumbledore because without Dumbledore, he's got no credibility. Harry has to do it all on his own because *Dumbledore told him to*. This is part of the reason I don't see this series as a coming of age tale. Harry remains Dumbledore's good little baby boy: obedient even unto death. And that's how he wins. (Huh... A sign of Tom's evilness was his independence... I think there's something there, actually. Perhaps JKR is saying we *shouldn't* grow up?) I'd have rather seen Harry assigned a task (destroy the horcruxes) and have him figure out how he was going to do it on his own. Not try and figure out how Dumbledore wanted him to do it. (After all, Dumbledore died during the war. Yet another parental figure Harry had to bury. Because of the war or nature or something being violated. ) > >>Magpie: > > Of course he could have asked his friends to help him-he has his > > dearest with him the whole time. > Pippin: > Sorry, no. Ginny is Harry's Weezy now. Betsy Hp: Odd that Voldemort didn't figure that out. Being so super scary and unstoppable and all. (I'd say Ginny's more Harry's womb, but that might just be JKR's creepy epilogue talking.) > >>Pippin: > And he didn't ask Ron and Hermione to help him, they insisted. Betsy Hp: And Dumbledore told him to. > >>Pippin: > As of the end of HBP, the horcrux task looked hopeless to most of > us. > Betsy Hp: Erm... No it didn't. It looked *lame* to a lot of us (at least, that's how I remember the list falling out pre-DH), but it didn't look hopeless. Heck, most of the list had the horcruxes figured out. Even down to the Ravenclaw horcrux's location in the RoR. Myself, I hoped the horcruxes would be used to get Harry to learn to work with others. But, I was still hoping for a coming of age tale. > >>Pippin: > Of course Harry did need an incredible amount of luck to succeed, > despite the horcruxes not being as well-protected as Voldemort > thought -- but how else do you win against the odds? Betsy Hp: Fight against an idiot supervillain who, though he knows you've got a mind link directly to his, lists through the information needed to kill him exactly when you need him to? Betsy Hp (running out the door, so hoping this makes sense and doesn't offend anyone... it's all my opinion, just my opinion!! ) From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Fri Apr 4 18:53:55 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:53:55 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182409 > > Magpie: > > We've pretty much all been using the shorthand of "kids" to refer to > > Harry's generation and "adults" to mean those out of school. The > > same distinction that's been made throughout canon. > > Pippin: > Yes, JKR makes us think of them as kids, but they're not kids in the > eyes of their society (except for Molly.) Magpie: This is a totally different thing than what we're talking about. They're students at Hogwarts, and have been students for all or most of the book. They're being contrasted with the actual adults, the people who have been out of school and leading professional lives since the beginning of the series and preparing for Voldemort's return. That's who we're obviously all talking about. That our guys are "grown up on the inside" or just passed the date where they'd be tried as adults has little bearing on that. Pippin: > The senior generation did what they could, IMO, but it's always been > the younger generation that's had to fight wars. JKR makes us feel > again how wrong and unfair that is, as if we'd never known it before. > That's what good fantasy is supposed to do. Magpie: No, they didn't do what they could. I'm sticking with the conversation I thought I joined, not leaping to one about how war subverts nature and makes parents bury children (which doesn't happen in this story anyway?the older generation has more deaths). People saying the Order didn't play a part or thinking they were lame doesn't translate into JKR making me feel how wrong or unfair war is. A story contrasting old generals waging a war with the 19- year-olds on the front line would be making that point. This story is shoving adults out of the way so that the teen heroes can get the glory and action. The conversation stemmed from many of us saying that we thought of course adults could do it themselves given this situation and would have in a different genre. > > Magpie: > > We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where everyone > was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but wait for Harry. And > that this was playing it like a realistic war story. > > Pippin: > I don't see how you can acknowledge that in real life there are times > when people feel they are paralyzed and powerless to do anything, and > yet say that if JKR puts that in her story, it's not realistic. Magpie: Saying that yes, sometimes in real life people--even seemingly countries--can feel powerless and paralyzed does not make a story realistic just because it shows people doing nothing. As I said, it reads to me like they're not doing anything because Harry's the hero, not because it's showing me the realistic psychology of people feeling helpless. In fact, she's not even showing them feeling helpless because we still need all our good guys to be as plucky and brave as they always have been. So they're shown to be plucky and brave but just not having a part to play. Which is fine for HP, but doesn't make it a study on the psychology of defeat. > > Magpie: > > The Order wasn't in disarray at all. > > Pippin: > Excuse me? The enemy leader is invulnerable, their government has > fallen in a silent coup, they've been horribly betrayed, Voldemort > knows all their identities, two of their leaders have been killed one > after the other, they've been ambushed, and they have no idea how the > enemy is learning their plans. Magpie: How does that translate into the Order being in disarray? Sorry they've had some setbacks, but I don't see how this has exploded the group. They don't have any plans for the enemy to learn after the one to bring Harry from one house to another. They're not searching out the mole. They don't have to, because there's nothing with which to interfere. Dumbledore didn't leave any more Orders, so they've got nothing to do. Pippin: > Their last instruction from Dumbledore was that Harry is their best > hope. Harry says he has instructions from Dumbledore, he trusts them > all, but he can't tell them what he's doing. > > If that's not disarray, what is? Magpie: Something other than being in contact and running a radio show and following your orders from Dumbledore. Those orders also reflecting that the title of this book is "Harry Potter and the..." and not "A Game of Wands." But naturally if people are asked to imagine hypothetical situations where you don't fix your hopes on Harry and hope Dumbledore foresaw this situation and has an unknown plan in action and imagine what the Order should do, many won't see them as completely unable to do anything. They could come up with some strategies that would not be beyond their reach. Pippin:> > They're not fighting a conventional war where there's lots of ways to > cripple the enemy. The only way to destroy Voldemort's war machine is > to destroy Voldemort. Magpie: They might not be fighting a conventional war but that doesn't mean there aren't lots of ways to cripple the enemy. Voldemort doesn't have a "war machine." He has followers and they aren't immortal. Take one out, Imperius them, get information from them--these things could all be helpful. You claim that Dumbledore acting as traitor to the Order without telling anybody about it and giving Snape the details of their flight from Privet Drive put them in disarray forever. That would imply having a spy in Voldemort's camp might have been helpful too?jeez, those guys are already at each other's throats. Lupin's spying in HBP seems to indicate stuff like that will happen, but it goes nowhere because that would entail writing a whole strategy. There's no real strategy to what Lupin is doing that will pay off, the point is the Lupin/Tonks plot and Lupin's personal struggles. > > Pippin: > > > I can see where it seems stupid that if there were all these > people willing to help they couldn't have helped Harry more directly. > But how could he rally them to help when he himself wasn't sure he > could trust Dumbledore, and yet the only credibility he had was > Dumbledore's authority and a prophecy he didn't understand? > > > > Magpie: > > I don't see why that was a problem when it came to Horcruxes. > > Pippin: > Harry: I don't believe in Dumbledore's plan, because otherwise I would > have kept this secret like he wanted, but he said I have to round up > all these horcrux thingies and destroy them. I've decided I'm too much > of a wimp, so I'd rather you lot did it. I should tell you that they > may be cursed, some of them are incredibly precious objects that are > heavily guarded, and they can possess anybody who isn't filled with > the power of love. Oh, and the prophesy says I have to be the one to > kill Voldemort, unless he kills me first, except Dumbledore said it > doesn't mean that unless I think it does. But Voldemort can't be > killed till we get rid of the horcrux thingies, so while you're out > risking yournecks and being turned into zombies, I'll just, um, hang > around the burrow with Ginny and snog, shall I? Right! Magpie: Okay, let me try to understand this paragraph. So first you're claiming that if Harry doesn't follow Dumbledore's instructions not to tell anyone, that means the whole plan must be thrown out--which of course is not true. He can trust that information while not choosing to keep it secret. It's not all or nothing. He doesn't have to trust Dumbledore completely, even if that makes him feel comforted. Then there seems to be the problem that it would be like Harry saying he was too much of a wimp so he wants other people to do it. This has some relevance if you assume, as I've been saying, that this is a work of YA fiction and we want Harry to do it because his name is on the book and because he's a kid, just like the intended audience. However, as some sort of realistic reason for not getting the Order involved, it's ridiculous. Who cares whether the kid feels like a wimp or not? Why on earth should he feel badly about other people helping if they can actually help? Then there's the fact that the things are dangerous, as if that's supposed to be some reason that nobody should try it...not sure why. Especially given that everybody in the Order loves. Horcruxes were destroyed by Dumbledore, Ron, Hermione and Vincent Crabbe, so I see no reason that some team comprised of Order members can't possibly be on the case. Then there's a note about the Prophecy that has little relevance I can see to whether or not Arthur and Bill would be able to attempt to find the Cup of Hufflepuff. Then there's another reference to how it's ridiculous to suggest that anybody should be out risking anything while Harry just sits at home and snogs Ginny...while it apparently makes perfect sense that Harry and his two friends should be risking their necks while everybody else sits at home and snogs their significant other. If your main concern is Harry's glory as the fictional hero yeah, that makes sense (I'm the hero of this book, so get out of my way while I alone pursue my dangerous quest!). In a regular war, Harry would be the one at home snogging. It's a fictional strategy more than a war strategy. > > Magpie: > > Of course he could have asked his friends to help him-he has his > > dearest with him the whole time. > > Pippin: > Sorry, no. Ginny is Harry's Weezy now. And he didn't ask Ron and > Hermione to help him, they insisted. Magpie: So, they're still with him. What difference does make that they insisted? (Dumbledore told him to include them.)The Order could have insisted too, but adults are not welcome because that's the kind of fantasy it is. Ron and Hermione are still closer to him than Ginny, sorry. She's not his wife yet. They're certainly closer to him than all the people you're claiming he can't have with him because they're so close to him. I wasn't even thinking of Ginny, obviously, since I'm talking about what the Order might have done. If we're talking about adults strategy, bringing his girlfriend too doesn't apply either. > Magpie: > > Or the Order--one might have > > expected Dumbledore to have asked them. He certainly could have > > trusted Lupin--Lupin "not trusting himself" sounds tragic and all, > > but it's not like hunting objects and destroying him would be beyond > > him. > > Pippin: > ::boggles:: Look at what the locket was able to make of Ron's > perfectly normal insecurities, and then ask yourself what it would do > to Lupin. Even Harry could bring out the wolf with a well-chosen > insult or two. What a horcrux could manage, I dread to think. Magpie: I'm asking myself what it would do to Lupin (assuming he was the one to open the locket). I'm not seeing anything so much worse than happened to Ron, who's also insecure. Harry insulted Lupin and he got angry. He didn't turn into a wolf. Of course the Horcrux hunt is somewhat difficult. That doesn't make every Order member obviously unequal to it in ways that Ron isn't. Including Lupin. Certainly not the point where you'd expect them all to assume it's too much for them without trying. > Magpie: > Another person might have had *Dumbledore* approach the Horcrux > > problem a different way. That's essentially what started the thread, > > I think. He's the general. > > Pippin: > You don't think it's realistic to have a spymaster whose passion for > secrecy creates problems for his own organization? Or who would have > turned to a young person to do the impossible? Magpie: Yes, that could be realistic. That doesn't mean this is realistic story because Dumbledore keeps secrets. Dumbledore's passion for secrecy doesn't translate into as much of a problem as it might have in a John Le Carre novel where adults would be trying to uncover this stuff rather than protecting their childish trust in the guy that they'll lose hope without. I haven't read the books in a while, but I think when Control dies Smiley tries to figure out what he was up to and get into the loop. Since Dumbledore's dead, why assume his plans were correct? You can trust the guy's intentions without assuming he's got to be right. Pippin: It > was because they didn't have the training or experience to know what > couldn't be done -- so they did it. Magpie: Excellent story, and the reason that story stands out is that it's unusual in warfare. There were people doing other things besides that one mission. Though there's no reason the Order should have thought that destroying the Horcruxes (not that that was the only thing they could have been doing) was impossible. Why should it be? I haven't argued that a teenager could never do anything. I argued against the idea that given the objective situation, the only solution is exactly what happened in the books. And that stuff going on with the adults is like a realistic war story. I don't think it is. I think this is a quest narrative about a young man who must, with his young friends, track down magical objects and kill his nemesis, with a smattering of recognizable war clich?s setting the scene. "War stuff" rather than a thought-out war. Which fits the style of the books throughout all 7. -m From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 4 21:28:24 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 21:28:24 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182410 > Magpie: > We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where everyone was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but wait for Harry. And that this was playing it like a realistic war story. Pippin: I don't see how you can acknowledge that in real life there are times when people feel they are paralyzed and powerless to do anything, and yet say that if JKR puts that in her story, it's not realistic. Alla: I do not know about Magpie, but I am not as much having issue that it was unrealistic that people feel they are paralyzed and powerless to do anything per se, as I am having issue with the DEGREE of that. Whole society waits for teenager and two of his friends to free them. I have no problem with quick fall of the Ministry as I said before, I find it very well foreshadowed and well executed. I am having problems with NOBODY else in the whole society except few people doing anything to fight Voldemort. Does that make sense? To me it is all in the degrees. Again, I am making allowances for WW to know that Harry is the Chosen one, that there is a prophecy about him, so certain people can believe it and choose to rely on Harry only, but ALL of them? I know that if I knew that my country is at war and evil maniac threatens everybody and there is a tale going around that there is a child who can defeat him and this child or teenager now is the only one who can do so, I know I would have been thinking ? oh that's nice, **if that happens ever**. And now let's sit down and think what I can do about it. I am not saying that I would have rushed in to join the army necessarily; I am not sure if I would be that brave or fit to do it, but you bet I would have found SOMETHING useful that I can do to help ? whether it will be to send the money to the army forces, whether I could do something with my skills that can help defending country efforts, something, ANYTHING. What I would not have been doing for sure is just decide that this teenager is indeed the only one who can do so and put all my hopes in that happening ever, maybe. From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sat Apr 5 04:32:11 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2008 21:32:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0804032212qaa55e1bs56e78c13cf319e35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0804042132r67cb6e24t817d5269fd16f409@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182415 Magpie: So either they're doing stuff or they're not. If their plan is not to do stuff then that's their plan. But it's a plan of keeping themselves out of trouble, not an Underground movement that's runnign their own side war. Some readers might still see other plans as being better things to do or think back up plans would make sense. -m Lynda: Well, they all expected Harry to be the one to rid the WW of Voldemort once and for all, as they understood the parts of the prophecy they thought they knew about and as DD had somewhat led them to believe. If to the end of keeping some people from wallowing in despair they're trying to keep people knowledgeable about what's going on in the anti-voldemort movement so that when the time to act comes, they do so, that's something. Sure there might have been other plans that were better or back up plans that would make sense. I never said otherwise. But, I don't think that what we were given was as lacking as some do and I do think that the final installment of the story works well with the rest of it. Possibly because I didn't want to read a book last summer that would have been so lengthy I would have been unable to often take it with on the bus, etc. because of the near impossiblity of reading such a long book while commuting without consistently dropping it when disembarking or even boarding, but there you go. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 04:51:18 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 04:51:18 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182416 bdclark0423: No, biggie! So now this is considered to be `off-topic' by these so called self-empowering elves whatever!!!! I say try out this site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ (those little elves can't control everything). bdclark0423. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 05:48:20 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 05:48:20 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: <705122.9975.qm@web53311.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182417 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, dragonkeeper wrote: > > Someone in the past must have found a way to control the Dementors > with a charm or spell at one time and then figured a way to use > them for the benefit of the witch world and if they figured a way > to control them then they must have found a way to kill them. > > My question involves how the ministry can control the Dementors? > What do they use to control the Dementors and if they know how > to control the Dementors then they must also know a way to kill > the Dementors should things go awry. > > dragonkeeper > bdclark0423: In this interview, JKR states dementors cannot be destroyed: http://the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript Cornersoul: So what happens to all the dementors where will they go will they be destroyed if so, how J.K. Rowling: You cannot destroy Dementors, though you can limit their numbers if you eradicate the conditions in which they multiply, ie, despair and degradation. As I've already said, though, J.K. Rowling: the Ministry no longer used them to torment its opponents. I would only assume that since dementors `feed' off of depression and the negative/sad emotions of humans and tend to elicit that state amongst humans, that it would only be beneficial that the agreed domain of dementors would be places such as Azkaban. It also makes sense, that a patronus, which is essentially the positive force (happy memories needed to conjure) would be what is used as a way to stave off or control them. Other examples I can think of in regards to creatures such as dementors is the Star Trek TNG episode Time's Arrow. They discover a race that actually exists in a dimension that is just a little out of phase of human's physical world, yet they prey on humans' soul or essence by consuming all this through a hole in the head that could be considered a mouth, plus these aliens don't have any other facial features except when they take on the human disguise. Now, of course, these aliens are destroyed in the end .. The other creature I consider them to be like would be the ring wraiths in Lord of the Rings, they exist in the realm between life and death, they wear robbing, you can see bones but no other noticeable human characteristics, amd the hero of the story always becomes a main target, as well as, immediately succumbs to their ominous prescense. That's about as far as the similarities go, since we know the wraiths were once men, and they're under the power of Sauron, and do his bidding (due to the nine rings they accepted from him). bdclark0423 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 06:11:40 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 06:11:40 -0000 Subject: Can dementors actually be killed? In-Reply-To: <00c701c8959b$f42760b0$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182418 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "k12listmomma" wrote: > > > It seems to me that if the Dementors could attack Dudley and attempt to kill > him (well, to be more accurate, suck out his soul), then a large amount of > Dementors still in existence would mean a continued threat for all Muggles, > even after Voldemort had died for good. Wizards would have a way of > protecting themselves, but the Muggles would be totally helpless. What would > stop the Dementors from just using Muggles as a new, unlimited food source? > > Shelley > bdclark0423: It was actually this post that made me think of the Star Trek TNG `Time's Arrow' episode. The aliens had a portal where they would go to a point in a race's civilization where a widely spread epidemic was prevalent. Sickness and disease would only augment the depression/despair, and basically be a feeding ground. bdclark0423 From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Sat Apr 5 10:04:49 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 10:04:49 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182419 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "bdclark0423" wrote: > > > bdclark0423: > > No, biggie! So now this is considered to be `off-topic' by > these so called self-empowering elves whatever!!!! I say try out > this site: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ > (those little elves > can't control everything). Geoff: You did notice the date of the ADMIN? Or are you getting in practice for the same date next year? From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 14:37:54 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:37:54 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182420 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > Magpie: > > > We're just disagreeing that JKR set up a situation where > > everyone was powerless and paralyzed to do anything but > > wait for Harry. And that this was playing it like a > > realistic war story. > > Pippin: > I don't see how you can acknowledge that in real life there > are times when people feel they are paralyzed and powerless > to do anything, and yet say that if JKR puts that in her . story, it's not realistic. > > > Alla: > > I do not know about Magpie, but I am not as much having issue > that it was unrealistic that people feel they are paralyzed > and powerless to do anything per se, as I am having issue > with the DEGREE of that. Whole society waits for teenager > and two of his friends to free them. I have no problem with > quick fall of the Ministry as I said before, I find it very > well foreshadowed and well executed. **I am having problems > with NOBODY else in the whole society except few people > doing anything to fight Voldemort.** Does that make sense? > To me it is all in the degrees. > > ... bboyminn: Here is the logical flaw in your argument, you are assuming that no one is doing anything, but, in my view that seems completely illogical. In OotP, we see that the Order is doing lots of things, though we don't know exactly what they are because that information is hidden from Harry. You assume that in HBP and DH that the Order and other citizens are doing nothing, and only to a limited extent is that true. Just as the bulk of the French citizens did nothing about the occupation by the Nazis because the felt powerless to do anything, so to did the bulk of the wizard citizens accept their fate. That fits consistently with real world examples in history. Just as in real history, where there were people who opposed what was happening, so to were there wizard citizens who did their best to oppose Voldemort and the DE's rise to power. But, and this is a point I made before, there were not in a position to launch and all out assault on the DE's or Voldemort; that would have been suicide. So, again as I said, they operated a stealthy 'shadows' effort. Now, as we all know, we don't see the wizard world doing a lot because Harry is our point-of-view character, and Harry doesn't see it. If he can't see it, neither can we, but there are signs in the books that citizens are resisting and that they are supporting Harry and any other resistance movement that crops up. But this is not the story of that resistance movement, this is Harry's story and that is the story JKR told. Yes, the bulk of the citizen were powerless because they were in a position that they could only fight their own government or fight seeming DE's one-on-one in public which would have been near suicide. There is no point in dying pointlessly, there is not point in attacking if winning is hopeless and your death is pointless. Again, this had to be a very stealthy in-the-shadows type of resistance until such time as the wizard world was in a position to launch an actual pointed fruitful attack, and the battle at Hogwarts gave them that field to fight on. Again, the books don't show us a lot of what the resistance was doing because this is not their story, but we know there were people organize against Voldemort and those who were very unsympathetic to Voldemort's cause, and there are hints in the books that in their behind-the-scenes way they were resisting the best they could until such time as it became productive to launch a full frontal assault. It is just illogical in my books to assume that the ENTIRE wizard world sat back and sipped tea and did nothing. Just one man's opinion. Steve/bboyminn From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Apr 5 15:16:39 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:16:39 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182421 > Titegen O'Lirpa > for the List Elves > So, from this time forward, NO further Snape discussions will be > tolerated. You have been warned. Potioncat hurries down the passageway of HP4GU Castle to the kitchens. Long before she is close, she can hear the sounds of a lively party. The List Elves seemed to be chanting "We have a grape's head." As she grew nearer the sounds of music, dancing and glass tinkling could be heard. Now it sounded like the Elves were singing "We stomped the ape's head." "Oh dear, I didn't know the Elves were so violent. But, I must show courage," she thought. Just as she tickled the pear she heard clearly, "We stopped the Snape thread." But as she stepped into the kitchen the singing stopped. A room full of elves turned and looked at her. There were no signs of a party, except for some crumbs on the floor and several blood-red-wine stains still glistening on the carpet. A few of the elves seemed to be holding something behind their back. Potioncat assumed it was glasses of Elf-made wine. "Does Miss need something?" Alika Elf asked. "I want to talk to you about the ADMIN decision to stop the Sn--- " Potioncat swallowed hard and tried again. "The Sn----" Potioncat glimpsed Phlytie Elf who had the extremely innocent expression worn only by the incredibly guilty. Potioncat knew at once that he had cast some sort of curse to keep her from saying "Snape" out loud. "I want to talk to you about the character who must no be named. You have to let us have threads about him." "Oh no, Miss. He is not being what this list is about," Alika Elf insisted. "But he is! And I have canon. JKR herself said that Sn---The character who must not be named is the most important character in the book." She looked around and amended. "Well, along with Dumbledore, that is. The whole HP story is built around his story arc." "Excuse me, I have to go moderate a Harry-as-Christ-figure thread," muttered Exmoor Elf, unabashedly draining his glass before vanishing. "Cite your source then," Shorty Elf demanded. "A good journalist never reveals " "Potioncat isn't being a journalist, Potioncat is a nurse, and the list elves head all about the bonfire the Godrick's Hollow Home Health Nursing Agency built with your job application. Potioncat shrugged. "OK. It was an interview in France. At least it was translated from French and it came from the Leaky Cauldron. Here's the bit I've cut and pasted: JKR says, "I definitely knew all the big things about Snape and Dumbledore because they're the two most important characters in the seventh book" Alika Elf's eyebrows rose about four feet above her little elfy head. "Alika Elf would like to see for herself." With a flash the link appeared and she vanished. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/3/jkr-snape-and-dumbledore-two- of-the-most-important-characters-in-deathly-hallows She was back just as quickly, "Miss left out a bit." "No, I cut and pasted you know cut. Snipping out the unimportant pieces." Alika stood as tall as an elf can and said, "The Creatrix actually said, So I did know. It was a complicated plotting process but by the time Philosopher's Stone was finished, I definitely knew all the big things about Snape and Dumbledore because in many ways they're the two most important characters in the seventh book Well, other than the trio, Harry, Ron and Hermione. Potioncat hung her head. "OK. But it still shows The character who must not be named was important." She could hear Shorty Elf whispering, "Should we tell Miss that it was all a joke any way? "No," Phlytie Elf hissed back. "Let's keep that on a need to know basis." Alika smiled at Potioncat, "The elves is decided. The list can have Snape threads again." Triumphant Potioncat grinned and said, "To show my appreciation you'll be receiving several cases of Honyedukes. Thank you." As she left, Potioncat almost thought she heard a tiny voice saying, "Let's ban something else and see if can get some fire-whiskey." From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 5 16:11:30 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:11:30 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182422 > > Betsy Hp: > Except in this story, the older generation did nothing, died, and > left their kid to fix everything. I mean, Harry's parents didn't > even have the presence of mind to arm themselves. Pippin: One of the things I love about canon is that it isn't only the bad guys who do really dumb things, and it isn't only the good guys who have phenomenal luck. Pettigrew's escape from the Shrieking Shack was at least as dependent on circumstances beyond his control as The Trio's escape from Gringotts. And as you've said yourself, Voldemort makes so many stupid moves that the more you know about him the harder it is to be afraid of him -- too bad for James and Lily that they weren't, then. They thought they could beat him with a simple trick, much like Harry thought he could outwit Griphook. And they were wrong. But what I was really thinking of was Neville, looking so beat up when McGonagall hadn't a scratch on her. And I thought Alla's point, though I can't speak for her, was that it seems so weird and wrong for Dumbledore to ask these young people to fight for him. As if that was some weird quirk of Dumbledore's, when really that's the way it's always been. > Betsy Hp: > What was unrealistic was JKR had an *entire nation* be paralyzed and > powerless. For *years*. An Auror or an Order member or any number > of WW soldiers feel paralyzed and powerless a time or two? Sure, I > can see that. That they *all* feel paralyzed and powerless and > that's all she wrote? Lame, lame, totally lame. And also, not > believeable. IMO. Pippin: Well, I guess real life is lame. Because *entire nations* do get subjugated, and years do pass without effective resistance, or even any recognition that persecution is taking place. Fail to recognize that, and you're blaming the victims,IMO -- gee, those guys must have been pretty lame or they'd have defended themselves. However, Voldemort was in power for less than a year before he was taken out. In VWI, the Ministry was resisting him actively and ruthlessly. In the interim, most people thought that Voldemort was finished, and everyone, including Order members, went back to their chosen lives -- except for Snape. But I got the impression from Dumbledore's confession that the whole reason for The Order was to find a way to defeat Voldemort without the indiscriminate killing that is an inevitable part of warfare. Because Lupin was right, most people would not hold off firing back because the person firing at them might not be in their right mind. Dumbledore's personal story makes it perfectly believable to me that he would be concerned about that. Of course he would recruit people who shared his beliefs. That would make them extremely reluctant to engage the DE's in a shooting war. Even Moody, Sirius tells us, tried not to kill. But as for engaging Voldemort, like it or not, Voldemort was invulnerable, and everyone knew it -- Fudge tells the PM he can't be killed, and when Harry dismisses Scrimgeour's offer of auror protection because the aurors can't stop Voldemort, Scrimgeour has no answer. Further, waiting for the right time or the right person is not helpless passivity -- it's patience, a virtue praised by fairy tales and military strategists alike. From the way McGonagall goes off like a coiled spring, I can't believe she was holding back from either complacency or hopelessness. From her actions, I don't think Dumbledore's philosophy would have held her back forever either. But the Order was blown -- IMO, the only reason McGonagall and the others were still alive is that Voldemort believed they had given up. After all, that is what his own supporters had done when their leaders were gone. Whatever the Order did, it had to be kept secret or Voldemort would have had them all killed. But it certainly *looks* like they were preparing people to act, because it's undeniably canon that there were people prepared to act when the time came. You can say that JKR just wanted the common people there for the big moment, but it's still a big moment that she chose for them, not for Harry, and they show up when Harry is invisible and as far as they know, already dead. It is indeed the big moment in the book, a bigger moment than when Harry turns out not to be dead, or even when Voldemort falls. It is the eucatastrophe, as Tolkien called it, the moment when impending disaster unexpectedly turns to joy. It stands in opposition to the false eucatastrophe, when Harry feels such warmth and happiness as his classmates are expelled. > > Betsy Hp: > See, this strikes me as such a cult of personality. Harry is > supposed to blindly trust Dumbledore because without Dumbledore, he's got no credibility. Harry has to do it all on his own because > *Dumbledore told him to*. This is part of the reason I don't see > this series as a coming of age tale. Harry remains Dumbledore's good little baby boy: obedient even unto death. And that's how he wins. Pippin: Huh? Harry does have a personal belief in Dumbledore at the beginning of the book, but he's no longer personally loyal to Dumbledore when he goes to his "death" -- he's certain Dumbledore betrayed him. But he agrees with Dumbledore's philosophy of saving as many lives as possible, and he goes along with the plan despite its cost to himself because he can see how it will accomplish that. And he believes that philosophy not because Dumbledore told him too but because it's what he's always believed. He does take Dumbledore's word about the mechanics of the plan, but trusting in an expert's knowledge is hardly a cult of personality. Harry's coming of age was not about learning how to work with other people. He already knew how to do that -- he was captain of a Quidditch team, fergawdsake. His coming of age was about learning that you need to work with other people regardless of whether you approve of them. Dumbledore, for example. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 19:46:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:46:26 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182423 Pippin: But what I was really thinking of was Neville, looking so beat up when McGonagall hadn't a scratch on her. And I thought Alla's point, though I can't speak for her, was that it seems so weird and wrong for Dumbledore to ask these young people to fight for him. As if that was some weird quirk of Dumbledore's, when really that's the way it's always been. Alla: Actually, no, not quite my point. I completely agree that Dumbledore always asked people to fight for him, always manipulated them. Well, no scratch that, I cannot take away from Dumbledore that he was willing to fight for the cause and die himself. So that is not my point at all. I find Dumbledore's actions to be absolutely, perfectly, completely in character. It is the action of the society as a whole I find weird and wrong. Appropriate for hero's journey, do not get me wrong, but weird if I think of it realistically. I still keep coming back to Magpie's lovely comparison about that imaginary meeting of anti Voldemort resistance, where NOTHING is good enough to try for the **whole** society, while teenager with the prophecy that his teacher made about him, will just do. Pippin: Well, I guess real life is lame. Because *entire nations* do get subjugated, and years do pass without effective resistance, or even any recognition that persecution is taking place. Fail to recognize that, and you're blaming the victims,IMO -- gee, those guys must have been pretty lame or they'd have defended themselves. Alla: Hmmm, I am sure you have examples of entire nations being paralyzed, and could it please not be Stalinist Russia or Franko Spain? Because to me there is a huge difference of peace times where millions had been put in prisons and dead, but at the same time there are a lot of people who are pretty happy with the regime and war time. Of the top of my head I do not remember the example of entire nation being paralyzed when war, especially OFFENSIVE war had been lunched upon them. Nations get concurred, oh sure they do, but not as a result of EVERYBODY doing nothing IMO. >From wars that I studied there are always had been people who had been doing something, anything, trying, failing, maybe, but trying. I just do not see it here in WW. Again, I understand why, especially after hearing from JKR's mouth that Christian themes are so strong in the story. But this whole conversation started with speculation about whether Harry's life could have been happier if Snape did not tell the prophecy and whether WW would have been able to do something without Harry. And my answer is absolutely, positively, most definitely YES. I do not blame the story for it, or anything. I just refuse to say that without Snape's abominable deed (IMO) Harry's life could not have turned out much better than it was. Because I see plenty of AU scenarios where, for example, there are more people in WW exercising their brains as Regulus did and figuring what Voldemort did without ever needing Harry. If one teenager could figure out that secret of Voldemort, what nobody else but Dumbledore could? And since Godric Hollow does not have to happen there is not even need in my scenario for Harry to die to get rid of last horcrux. Pippin: Huh? Harry does have a personal belief in Dumbledore at the beginning of the book, but he's no longer personally loyal to Dumbledore when he goes to his "death" -- he's certain Dumbledore betrayed him. Alla: Right with this I of course agree, could never get "the Harry goes and sacrifice himself because he believes in Dumbledore so much still" argument, if Dumbledore is not among the loved ones whom Harry calls to support him in what he believes to be his last moments. Pippin: But he agrees with Dumbledore's philosophy of saving as many lives as possible, and he goes along with the plan despite its cost to himself because he can see how it will accomplish that. And he believes that philosophy not because Dumbledore told him too but because it's what he's always believed. He does take Dumbledore's word about the mechanics of the plan, but trusting in an expert's knowledge is hardly a cult of personality. Alla: Yes, I know. I will tell you this though, I always wanted Harry to say it out loud as in contrast to what he said in HBP. I am my own man. BUT I think that she wrote it subtly enough without spelling it out by not having Dumbledore appear among those whom Harry wants with him in the last minute. I thought it was, well, brilliant. I wish Harry would not have forgiven Dumbledore like ever, but since I do not believe that JKR subverted the genre all that much any more, I know that it would have gone against laws of the genre. JMO, Alla From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 19:48:04 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:48:04 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182424 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: It is just illogical in my books to assume that the ENTIRE wizard world sat back and sipped tea and did nothing. Just one man's opinion. Alla: You are right. My argument has a logical flaw because it advances unsupportable assumption. It is indeed hard to imagine that the whole WW just sat back, watching Harry and his friends trying to bring down Voldemort. They must have done something to help out, yes? The only question remains WHAT? From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 22:13:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 22:13:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's "coming of age" (Was: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182425 Pippin wrote: > But as for engaging Voldemort, like it or not, Voldemort was invulnerable, and everyone knew it -- Fudge tells the PM he can't be killed, and when Harry dismisses Scrimgeour's offer of auror protection because the aurors can't stop Voldemort, Scrimgeour has no answer. Carol responds: Thanks for the canon here, and I agree with you on this point, but I do wish we had more than Fudge's word and Scrimgeour's silence as evidence that the invulnerabilty was real rather than commony believed. (He does conjure a shield to protect himself from Dumbledore's spells even though he isn't hurt by them; DD has his own reasons for not trying to kill LV; he knows that at worst an AK from the Elder Wand would vaporize LV. But would it even do that much? "Can't be killed" implies that it wouldn't. After all, the AK that destroyed his body before was his own, perhaps amplified by the ancient magic that caused his body to rip apart rather than fall to the ground unmarked as is usual with AKs.) It would be helpful, for example, if a renegade DE attempted to AK LV and he was unharmed by the spell. As it is, his greatest weapon appears to be terror (backed by a very fast wand arm or the ability to cast multiple AKs at once--I'm thinking of the dead DEs after the cup Horcrux is stolen) and a willingness to torture or even kill his own followers. To reiterate, I agree with you, but I think that JKR could have done more to establish that invulnerability. I'm not sure that Harry's being the only person who survived after LV decided to kill him counts or not; we do, at least, have a powerful witch, Amelia Bones, who tried to fight back and lost, but like much of Voldemort's magic, that's off page. Pippin: > But the Order was blown -- IMO, the only reason McGonagall and the others were still alive is that Voldemort believed they had given up. After all, that is what his own supporters had done when their leaders were gone. Whatever the Order did, it had to be kept secret or Voldemort would have had them all killed. But it certainly *looks* like they were preparing people to act, because it's undeniably canon that there were people prepared to act when the time came. Carol responds: Here I don't quite agree. The main reason that McGonagall (an Order member) and Flitwick (a possible Order member) and Sprout and Slughorn (teachers opposed to Voldemort--admittedly, in Slughorn's case, it took a while to arouse his courage) are alive and free when Voldemort attacks Hogwarts is that Snape kept them on as staff members (a real DE would have sent them to Azkaban and staffed the school with other Voldemort supporters). Also, of course, Voldemort is sidetracked from his takeover by his quest the Elder Wand. He was probably counting on Bellatrix to kill tonks and Lupin (Mad-Eye was already dead). As for Mr. weasley, he could be controlled by threats to his daughter, who was still at school. (Once Snape allowed her to go home for Easter vacation, she and the rest of her family went into hiding.) At any rate, if LV had won the Battle of Hogwarts, he would probably have turned his attention to the survivng Order members--possibly including Snape, if he hadn't been killed by Nagini. Pippin: > You can say that JKR just wanted the common people there for the big moment, but it's still a big moment that she chose for them, not for Harry, and they show up when Harry is invisible and as far as they know, already dead. It is indeed the big moment in the book, a bigger moment than when Harry turns out not to be dead, or even when Voldemort falls. It is the eucatastrophe, as Tolkien called it, the moment when impending disaster unexpectedly turns to joy. It stands in opposition to the false eucatastrophe, when Harry feels such warmth and happiness as his classmates are expelled. Carol responds: Your first sentence makes a good point (though they show up so late that there's not much to do--Harry reveals his presence almost immediately). The second sentence, though, is a matter of opinion: a bigger moment for which reader? And while I understand the concept of eucatastrophe, I don't understand your last sentence at all. When does Harry feel warmth and happiness as his classmates are expelled and why would that qualify as a "false eucatastrophe"? Pippin: > Huh? Harry does have a personal belief in Dumbledore at the beginning of the book, but he's no longer personally loyal to Dumbledore when he goes to his "death" -- he's certain Dumbledore betrayed him. But he agrees with Dumbledore's philosophy of saving as many lives as possible, and he goes along with the plan despite its cost to himself because he can see how it will accomplish that. And he believes that philosophy not because Dumbledore told him too but because it's what he's always believed. He does take Dumbledore's word about the mechanics of the plan, but trusting in an expert's knowledge is hardly a cult of personality. Carol responds: Agreed so far. Pippin: > Harry's coming of age was not about learning how to work with other people. He already knew how to do that -- he was captain of a Quidditch team, fergawdsake. His coming of age was about learning that you need to work with other people regardless of whether you approve of them. Dumbledore, for example. Carol responds: I'm not sure that being captain of a Quidditch team (and Seeker before that) really qualifies as working with other people. The Seeker is all alone (occasionally dodging Bludgers but mostly watching for the Snitch and keeping an eye on the rival Seeker) while the game goes on below them (basically giving the spectators something to watch until the Seeker wins the game--or, at any rate, ends it). As for being captain, that's not so much working with others as getting others to work together and telling them what to do. Harrry only reluctantly allowed Ron and Hermione to go with him (they took rather desperate measures, especially Hermione's sending her parents to Australia with their memories altered, to insure that he didn't go on the Horcrux hunt alone, and, of course, he repulsed Lupin's request to accompany them. He also at first refused help from Neville and the DA, just as he had resisted Luna's Neville's, and Ginny's help back in OoP, only to be rebuked by Neville's "I don't see why you can't trust us. Everyone in this room's been fighting and they've been driven in here because the Carrows were hunting them down. everyone in here's loyal to Dumbledore--loyal to you" (DH Am. ed. 583). He doesn't tell them about the Horcruxes, but he does accept Ron's advice and let them help. (Had he not done so, he would never have learned that the lost Ravenclaw object was the diadem that Xeno Lovegood had been trying in his eccentric way to recreate). There's a whole paragraph in which Harry has an epiphany of sorts regarding Dumbledore's propensity for "secrets and lies" ("was he turning into Dumbledore, keeping his secrets clutched to his chest, afraid to trust?"). Of course, Harry hasn't yet learned the full truth about either Dumbledore or the one man he trusted (and revealed some of his secrets to, Severus Snape, but it's a beginning. And later Harry asks Neville to "kill the snake" (again, not explaining that it's a Horcrux--rather like DD's policy of telling people only as much as they need to know). Harry is learning that he doesn't need to do everything himself. As for learning to work with people whether or not you approve of them, I don't think that's what it's about. He knows that he has to sacrifice himself even though Dumbledore has "betrayed" him, and he silently slides into an understanding and empathy for Snape that leads to a public vindication of the man he had intended to seek revenge on for nearly a year. I think that Harry learns to trust others and not to judge by appearances (whether it's the appearance of ineptitude in Neville or of treachery in Snape). And he learns to forgive Dumbledore for being considerably less than perfect. Carol, for whom "The Prince's Tale," "King's Cross," and the epilogue are as important as indicators of Harry's progress as "The Forest Again" From juli17 at aol.com Sat Apr 5 23:30:38 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:30:38 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182426 > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > It is just illogical in my books to assume that the ENTIRE > wizard world sat back and sipped tea and did nothing. > > Just one man's opinion. > > Alla: > > You are right. My argument has a logical flaw because it advances > unsupportable assumption. It is indeed hard to imagine that the whole > WW just sat back, watching Harry and his friends trying to bring down > Voldemort. They must have done something to help out, yes? > > The only question remains WHAT? > Julie: Exactly. It only would have taken a couple of lines in DH to say that Order members (including new recruits like some Muggleborns, one would hope) were actively fighting the Death Eaters (who would likely have found some new recruits too) in various battles. Yeah, Voldemort may be invulnerable, but certainly his mostly dopey minions are not! Instead we just hear about wizards on the run, Muggleborns begging on the streets, and so on, as if no one can--or will even try-- to stand up to the dimwit hoodlums actually carrying out Voldemort's dirty work. As it is now we have to *assume* some people were fighting back (using isolated examples like Neville and DA kids at Hogwarts), but how much better would it have been if Harry's struggle against Voldemort had been set against a background of equal stuggle of the regular citizen good guys against the DE bad guys, who were desperately doing their part to save their world while waiting for Harry to take down the supreme leader instead of running and hiding? Much better, methinks. And again, just a few lines here and there would have set this sort of active battle background in place. Julie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sat Apr 5 23:46:16 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2008 23:46:16 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182427 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > It is just illogical in my books to assume that the ENTIRE > wizard world sat back and sipped tea and did nothing. > > Just one man's opinion. > > Alla: > > You are right. My argument has a logical flaw because it advances > unsupportable assumption. It is indeed hard to imagine that the whole > WW just sat back, watching Harry and his friends trying to bring down > Voldemort. They must have done something to help out, yes? > > The only question remains WHAT? > bboyminn: Just from memory of course - - The Order tracked the movement of known Death Eaters. - Lupin lived with the Werewolves hoping to persuade them not to join Voldemort. - Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, falsified their relationships with muggle-borns to convince the Ministry that those muggle-borns indeed had magical ancestry. - Wizards cast spells on their muggle neighbor's homes to protect them. - They formed an underground radio station to keep the wizard world informed of what was really going on. - This quote from the broadcast - on the likelihood of the death of Harry - "...it would strike a deadly blow at the moral of those resisting the new regime...". - Rubeus Hagrid throws a 'Support Potter Party'. - Xeno Lovegood published the truth for as long as he could. - Despite his desperate betrayal, Xeno did help the gang with clues about the Hallows. - Member of the Order and relatives of the Weasley's allowed their homes to be used to protect muggles, muggle-borns, and eventually, the entire Weasley family as well as Dean, Luna, and Mr. Ollivander. - I suspect the rain in the offices of certain /new/ Ministry officials was not an accident. - Snape, Phineas, and Dumbledore's portrait continue to try and turn the tide toward Harry. - Bill's Shell cottage was used to house Ron then Harry and Co. for a while. - Aberforth sends Dobby to help Harry at Malfoy Manor. - Aberforth himself helps Harry when Harry and Co appear in Hogsmead. - When it all started going down at Hogwarts, the wizard world rallied and came to the fight. That's all that occur to me at the moment, I'm sure if I dug I could find a few more. But again remember, this is not the story of the adults. They inevitably remain in the background. Even Neville and the DA to some extent remain in the background, we hear about them mostly second hand or after the fact. So, while we don't really see a lot being done, it is clear that something is going on in the background. Just passing it along. steve/bboyminn From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 00:05:40 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:05:40 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182428 > > > Brilliant! bdclark0423 (oh yeah, i think it starts with a 'p', that ryhmes with 't' which is also the end of a word that includes 'otionca') From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 00:07:45 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:07:45 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182429 > bboyminn: > > Just from memory of course - > > - The Order tracked the movement of known Death Eaters. Alla: I understand that you said from memory, but do you mind referring me to the quote, please? As it is phrased, I am having a hard time qualifying it as doing something to help the fight. But I certainly forgot the quotes before and maybe this tracking indeed went to something useful. bboyminn: > - Lupin lived with the Werewolves hoping to persuade them not > to join Voldemort. Alla: I was asking about them doing something in DH actually, because we had been told about order fighting in the first war as well. But okay, sure he lived with them and tried. Did it lead to something in DH? bboyminn: > - Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, falsified > their relationships with muggle-borns to convince the Ministry > that those muggle-borns indeed had magical ancestry. Alla: Oh? I have to ask for the quote again. Who falcified relationships with whom? I mean which characters? Are we talking about hearings lead by Umbridge. I remember something happened there, but not what you are describing at all. Or are you talking about something totally different? bboyminn: > - Wizards cast spells on their muggle neighbor's homes to > protect them. Alla: That would have been a nice example, sure. But where are you getting this from? I remember Kingsley asking people to do it on forecast, but doing it? > - They formed an underground radio station to keep the wizard > world informed of what was really going on. Alla: Sure members of the order did. > - This quote from the broadcast - on the likelihood of the > death of Harry - "...it would strike a deadly blow at the > moral of those resisting the new regime...". Alla: Yes, but again where are they? > bboyminn: > - I suspect the rain in the offices of certain /new/ Ministry > officials was not an accident. Alla: you are not seriously suggesting that throwing water at the people in their offices counts as antiVoldemort resistance? bboyminn: >> - When it all started going down at Hogwarts, the wizard world > rallied and came to the fight. Alla: Yes, one and only battle, sure. bboyminn: > But again remember, this is not the story of the adults. They > inevitably remain in the background. Even Neville and the DA > to some extent remain in the background, we hear about them > mostly second hand or after the fact. Alla: Yes I know this is not the story of the adults, what I am saying is that I do not see enough being done even on the background. bboyminn: > So, while we don't really see a lot being done, it is clear > that something is going on in the background. Alla: Even though I disagree with a lot of your examples, I have to concede that **something** was being done **by the members of the order**. I do not see it as nearly enough, but yes, sure they did something. I have not seen anything in your examples that somebody else except the members of the Order did something. Oh wait, there is Xeno. He printed the truth, yes and then betrayed Trio. Here is one person who is not from the order. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 00:20:07 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 00:20:07 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182430 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > Pippin: > > But what I was really thinking of was Neville, looking so > beat up when McGonagall hadn't a scratch on her. And I > thought Alla's point, though I can't speak for her, was > that it seems so weird and wrong for Dumbledore to ask > these young people to fight for him. ... > > bboyminn: Well, on this point, Dumbledore did not ask Neville or any of the other students to fight for /him/. Instead they volunteered to fight for themselves. > Alla: > > ... > > It is the action of the society as a whole I find weird and > wrong. > ... > > ... > > Hmmm, I am sure you have examples of entire nations being > paralyzed, and could it please not be Stalinist Russia or > Franko Spain? Because to me there is a huge difference of > peace times where millions had been put in prisons and dead, > but at the same time there are a lot of people who are pretty > happy with the regime and war time. bboyminn: Oddly, this precisely describes what did happen and what is happening in the wizard world. This is not a declared war with battle grounds and front lines. This is a country at peace being taken over from the inside. > Alla: > Of the top of my head I do not remember the example of entire > nation being paralyzed when war, especially OFFENSIVE war had > been lunched upon them. Nations get concurred, oh sure they do, > but not as a result of EVERYBODY doing nothing IMO. > > bboyminn: How about Russia and Spain? How about Bruma, Laos, and Cambodia? How about many many starving nations in Africa that perpetually go from dictator to tyrant? How about similar nations in South America? How about El Salvador? Bolivia? Chile? How about the many Eastern European nations that suffered under the boot heel of Russia? How about the Croatian/Serbian conflict? How about ancient Rome? Ancient Greece? Armenia? And since the example has come up so many times, how about France? How about Poland? How about Germany? How about any of the countries occupied by the Nazis in WWI and WWII? Really, history is littered with examples. Steve/bboyminn From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 6 02:44:42 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:44:42 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182431 > Alla: > > you are not seriously suggesting that throwing water at the people in their offices counts as antiVoldemort resistance? > Pippin: Set off the sprinkler system in your building, and see how much work you get done > Alla: > > Yes I know this is not the story of the adults, what I am saying is > that I do not see enough being done even on the background. Pippin: This whole argument takes the events of DH out of context. Scrimgeour had a whole year during which the Ministry attempted to counter Voldemort with all the resources it could command, including far more professional dark wizard fighters than were part of the Order. It didn't work. Why should the Order adopt the same failed tactics? And really, unless you can come up with some reason why the same people who rallied to Hogwarts at the end of DH wouldn't have listened to the Order earlier, why assume that they weren't doing what the wireless broadcasts suggested they should do? Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 02:54:08 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 02:54:08 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 1 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182432 Okay, I am guessing I will find a lot of new things, since I only reread this book once or twice all together. I just do not like feeling this enraged about Dumbledore. (wanting to splap him, yes, but enraged I can only take in small doses, and that was my feeling with him through this book :) I also remember sympathizing so badly with Harry, his temper, his rudeness and all that. And there was of course Umbridge. Oh well, here we go. I think this chapter sets up Harry's mood of being left out of the information loop brilliantly and that's on top of him still reliving Graveyard. His aunt and uncle exchanged looks of outrage. "Listening to the news! Again? Well, it changes every day, you see," said Harry" - OOP, am.ed, p.6, paperback Alla: Heee, love that later on Harry says that he knew he is in trouble for his rudeness and did not care. Was waiting for him to talk back to Dursleys for several books ( I mean he tried in PS/SS to Dursley, but was not so succesful to me). "Harry was sure that the crackling noise had been made by someone Apparating or Dissapparating. It was exactly the sound Dobby the house-elf made when he vanished into thin air" - p.7 Alla: Okay, I know Harry is on edge, and desperately wants to see somebody magical, but was somebody here or he just thought somebody was? It was surely not Arabella and Dementors cannot really apparate, right? "We can't say much anything about you-know-what, obviously..." We've been told not to say anything important in case letters go astray..." Alla: So Harry is mad at Ron and Hermione, at Sirius, at everybody and I am already mad at Dumbledore. Oh dear and I just started. And still when Harry produces Patronus later on in this chapter, his happy memory is Ron and Hermione. Although, interesting detail: "He was never going to see Ron and Hermione again - And their faces burst clearly into his mind as he fought for his breath - "EXPECTO PATRONUM" - p.18 Alla: At first I thought that the happy memory was that he would never see them again and then I realized that I simply misread. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 06:14:12 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 06:14:12 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 1 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182433 > "Harry was sure that the crackling noise had been made by someone > Apparating or Dissapparating. It was exactly the sound Dobby the > house-elf made when he vanished into thin air" - p.7 > > Alla: > > Okay, I know Harry is on edge, and desperately wants to see somebody > magical, but was somebody here or he just thought somebody was? > > It was surely not Arabella and Dementors cannot really apparate, > right? Montavilla47: I think what Harry heard was Mundungus Disapparating in order to get the cauldrons or whatever. From Meliss9900 at aol.com Sun Apr 6 06:45:37 2008 From: Meliss9900 at aol.com (Meliss9900 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 02:45:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] OOP Chapter 1 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182434 In a message dated 4/5/2008 9:54:40 P.M. Central Daylight Time, dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com writes: Alla: Okay, I know Harry is on edge, and desperately wants to see somebody magical, but was somebody here or he just thought somebody was? It was surely not Arabella and Dementors cannot really apparate, right? Nope not Arabella or dementors or even a house elf. Remember Mundungus was on guard duty that night and he abandoned his post to pick up a load of pilfered cauldrons. IIRC the twins were apparating with a "crack" at Grimmauld Place. Melissa **************Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides. (http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/united-states?ncid=aoltrv00030000000016) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bdclark0423 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 07:43:18 2008 From: bdclark0423 at yahoo.com (bdclark0423) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 07:43:18 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182435 Questions: 1. Does Harry pick up Hermione's habits? Well, they have been friends for seven years, so whether productive or not, friends would start to pick up each other's habit, I would guess, `out of habit' 2. Satisfied in finally seeing Harry's home? What was more moving for me was the scene in the cemetery, it was a little more emotional. Passing by the old home only gave a sense of physical confirmation of his parents' existence. Harry reaches for the gate simply to touch part of the house. 3. How does Nagini know where they're standing? Obviously Nagini was there as part of Voldy's trap in the first place. Something would have alerted her of their presence. Also, there was fresh snow (after leaving cemetery, Hermione only looks over her shoulder occasionally, this suggest she's not hiding their tracks). Harry had triggered the magical sign, magic always leaves a small trace. Hermione makes an exclamation, while Harry begins to reply, then realizes that someone is listening. Also, Harry has part of Voldy's soul, and he's wearing the locket, this possibly meant Nagini can sense both. Plus, I would think Nagini relies on senses that Humans don't know about or use. 4. Any clues on what the dealy-oh is up with Bathilda? The fact she never spoke except the one command `Come!' was telling me something wasn't right. The foul smell and unkempt house weren't any associations I made with possibility that Bathilda may have been something other than what she seemed. 5. Harry's locket acts up, what was amiss? For me, Carol's answer is spot on: > justcarol67: > I don't think that he could have guessed that "Bathilda" > was a Horcrux herself, one soul bit responding to another, and his > guess that the Horcrux sensed that the Sword of Gryffindor, an object > capable of destroying Horcruxes, was near makes sense given his > expectations and his interpretation of "Bathilda's" behavior. 6. With the state of B's house, shouldn't have H&H known something was wrong? They both decided to go to Godric's Hollow to see what they could learn from Bathilda. They knew all along that most likely Voldy would lay a trap. The fact that an old senile witch is living in such squalor just makes the scene creepy, disgusting, yet intriguing. 7. Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome? I was totally fooled by the outcome and how they almost got caught, dropped the photo for Voldy to see, broke a wand and, what's worse, they came up empty handed in trying to retrieve the sword. 8. What was your reaction to `Bathilda?' Impressed that JKR was able to come up with such morbid and twisted imagery this and the proceeding chapter held me under their captivating spell. 9. Again, how did the scene of Voldy killing J&L live up to your expectations (I realize that much of this has been discussed.)? Much of this has been discussed. 10. How reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case? At this point, we know Harry only sees through Voldy's eyes whenever there are strong enough emotions. So this memory, accurate or not, is powerful enough to stir Voldy, and I would think, Voldy would see it as the truth. 11a. Do you think L&J were too trusting of the Fidelius charm? Refresh my memory, but are Lily and James aware of the prophecy and that it ties Voldy to Harry? In any case, I don't see either one of them living their lives in complete fear and mistrust. How do you think your children would turn out if they were brought up constantly feeling that way---like a paranoid psychopath? 11.b What about the picture of DD and Grindelwald arm in arm? DD is totally gay. 11.c Do you think Harry and Hermione's relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night? With Ron gone, I feel that this part in the book is where Harry and Hermione grow the closest. Their best friend deserting them, narrowly escaping death, continually living in hiding, discovering hidden parts of DD past life, makes them (especially Harry) very vulnerable. It's when most things aren't going right and you can still manage to function around another, only shows the closeness that's there. bdclark0423 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elseajay at earthlink.net Sun Apr 6 14:48:48 2008 From: elseajay at earthlink.net (Lois Jamieson) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 10:48:48 -0400 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War Message-ID: <001501c897f5$52e1ca90$8a7f7e45@g4j1d8> No: HPFGUIDX 182436 Alla: >> you are not seriously suggesting that throwing water at the people in their offices counts as antiVoldemort resistance? > Pippin: Set off the sprinkler system in your building, and see how much work you get done << Ask any soldier who served in a war, or anyone who served in an "underground" campaign, and they'll tell you that see it as their sworn duty to harass the enemy any way they can. Look at the end of a movie like "The Great Escape," which is based on a true story. Even though the massive escape failed, the participants were pleased that they had harassed the Germans and tied up their resources for so long guarding and then capturing the prisoners. It was still a victory. An endless series of small annoyances and setbacks can be just as debilitating to morale as a major hit--more so, perhaps, because when there's a catastrophe to any group of people, they often rally and pull together to fight even harder. If a little daily magical interference at the Ministry was all some average wizards felt they could manage, that's to be respected and saluted. As I read DH, which was a pretty dark and hopeless story for much of its length, I found myself immensely heartened by small gestures, like the graffiti Harry found at Godric's Hollow from unknown people saying they supported him and encouraging him to keep fighting. Don't dismiss the little efforts--sometimes they take as much courage as the big ones, and count just as much. Lois elseajay at earthlink.net From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sun Apr 6 16:25:12 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 16:25:12 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: <001501c897f5$52e1ca90$8a7f7e45@g4j1d8> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182437 > Alla: > >> you are not seriously suggesting that throwing water at the people > in their offices counts as antiVoldemort resistance? > > > > Pippin: > Set off the sprinkler system in your building, and see how much work > you get done << > > Ask any soldier who served in a war, or anyone who served in an > "underground" campaign, and they'll tell you that see it as their sworn > duty to harass the enemy any way they can. Magpie: To get technical, whoever pulled that prank at the MoM wasn't setting off sprinkler systems in a modern office building, just making it rain in one person's office. As brave as that itself might have been, it's the type of thing we see Wizards doing to each other for fun in other books--which is perhaps why it surprises some of us that the entire WW didn't become one big jack in the box when Voldemort tried to take over. OotP of course shows pranking on a larger scale interfering greatly with the running of things just this way, because Umbridge is always having to put out little fires all over the place with the teachers not helping to fix them just as I think somebody in DH points out how "difficult" it has been to stop the raining. Though of course, I think what Betsy is questioning is why this is all anybody thought they could manage. It's not unbelievable, for instance, that Harry and his friends slip out of the DE's grasp for months. Pippin: Harry's coming of age was not about learning how to work with other people. He already knew how to do that -- he was captain of a Quidditch team, fergawdsake. His coming of age was about learning that you need to work with other people regardless of whether you approve of them. Dumbledore, for example. Magpie: Not to speak from Betsy, but based on reading her posts I don't think by "learn to work with others" she means Harry needed to learn to accept help from his loyal friends or captain the Quidditch team. That's obviously one line that did go through the books and had already been done by OotP. Betsy was, I think, referring to Harry having to learn to compromise and reconsider his own behavior against people he truly didn't disapprove of or didn't like and who truly didn't like him in return. He doesn't disapprove of Dumbledore; he's Dumbledore's man throughout the series. He loves the guy. In DH he has some anxiety over whether or not Dumbledore loved him or was the man he thought he was decades before--iow, it's more like having to forgive James for not being perfect or for doing things he didn't like. In both cases Harry wants to believe the best of the person. When it comes to the people he truly dismisses and rejects the most that's required of Harry is to accept and acknowledge their own service or debt to him, sometimes after their death. I believe that's what Betsy was expecting from the Horcrux hunt and said so pre-DH. The kind of story that the book wasn't doing at all. Accepting the flaws of the people you like and who like you is very different from what Betsy was talking about that didn't happen. Harry had very smooth sailing around all those kinds of potentially more humiliating and humbling conflicts and challenges. The book wasn't ever going there, it turned out. -m From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 6 16:57:16 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 6 Apr 2008 16:57:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/6/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1207501036.12.89964.m36@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182438 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 6, 2008 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 2008 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 Apr 6 17:07:14 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 17:07:14 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182439 bboyminn: Oddly, this precisely describes what did happen and what is happening in the wizard world. This is not a declared war with battle grounds and front lines. This is a country at peace being taken over from the inside. Alla: Not in my opinion. As I said before, while millions disappeared and died during Stalin terror, A LOT of people were also pretty happy with the regime. And if you ask those old people who are still among the living, thank goodness, some of them will still tell you that they miss Stalin and his iron hand to make the order, etc. And those stories about people CRYING during Stalin's funeral were not myth, you know. Let's see who was HAPPY about Voldemort's reign. On the top of my head I remember Bella and . Bella. Fake Moody would have been happy I grant you that. Malfoys sure were not picture of happiness IMO. So if nobody was happy in my book it makes sense for them to do staff Bboyminn: And since the example has come up so many times, how about France? How about Poland? How about Germany? How about any of the countries occupied by the Nazis in WWI and WWII? Alla: Yes, how about those countries occupied during WWII? Plenty of Russian territory was occupied by Nazis for a year or two till red army was able to fight back successfully and many people were paralyzed, helpless, sent to concentration camps, etc. But many people were also fighting back and yes, on occupied territories. Sometimes "partisans" were able to do a very significant damage, you know. And even in concentration camps when death was right there and they probably knew most likely to come for all of them, still some people were fighting. Remember rebellion in Warsaw ghetto? Pippin: This whole argument takes the events of DH out of context. Scrimgeour had a whole year during which the Ministry attempted to counter Voldemort with all the resources it could command, including far more professional dark wizard fighters than were part of the Order. It didn't work. Why should the Order adopt the same failed tactics? Alla: What failed tactics? I remember Scrimgeour desperately trying to make Harry work with him. As I said before I do not blame Harry for refusing to work with the ministry where Umbridge still works if nothing else, but I surely blame Dumbledore for not making sure that Harry knew that Scrimgeour does not have to be his enemy. Pippin: And really, unless you can come up with some reason why the same people who rallied to Hogwarts at the end of DH wouldn't have listened to the Order earlier, why assume that they weren't doing what the wireless broadcasts suggested they should do? Alla: Hmm, I see your point here. I mean I would like if them doing it was actually shown, but I think it is a reasonable assumption to make if they did come to fight after listening broadcasts that they may have adopted something suggested. I do not accept it as fact, but I absolutely accept it as possibility and the one which only requires one step inference. Nice job Pippin JMO, Alla From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Sun Apr 6 17:29:38 2008 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 09:29:38 -0800 Subject: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Re:_[HPforGrownups]_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_th?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?e_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secre?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?t?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <26845FD3-1E15-432B-8A7C-9F0FAAFAB483@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 182440 On 2008, Mar 31, , at 02:58, ?akh? wrote: > 2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the house > in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry finally > sees his family home? I thought it was appropriate and touching - Christmas eve with snow - peaceful and serene, soothing what could have been a very jarring experience. I guess Harry now owns two homes - Grimmauld Place and the Potter family home in Godric's Hollow. I wonder where he lives 19 years later. I wonder if he would be healed enough to make Godric's Hollow his home, again. > 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the > Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through > Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? > Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the > ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing? I got the feeling that Mrs. Norris could "see" beneath the invisibility cloak, too. In both cases, however, I think they are using different senses than sight. In various places it is made clear that the cloak is perfect when it comes to sight, but Harry is aware, even at the start, that he is still perfectly solid. And he infers that the cat could smell him after he took a bath in the smelly soaps. I think the fact that "Bathilda" could see him beneath the cloak is the first clue that she isn't a normal human - our senses of smell and heat detection are much less capable of such detection. > 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of Bathilda > is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we all have > the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms for you on > the first read? I thought right away that she was really dead. I thought that she was one of Voldie's inferi. > 7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say > the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I > was primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the > buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome? I didn't speculate quite accurately. I thought she was an inferi, but I think there were a lot of clues about the eventual surprise. > 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most > grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to > the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda? My initial reaction is more typical of me than of most readers. The second I knew what was going to happen, I skipped to the end of the chapter to find out how it turned out, before I was even able to go back and read the entire scene. I have a lot of trouble reading "grisly" or horrific scenes. For years, between the publication of HBP and DH, I couldn't read (or listen to) the chapter at Spinner's End. It was just too disturbing to me. So I would skip it. > 9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for > seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's > destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations? What > did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that > much of this has been discussed.) I was a bit disappointed that there wasn't more to what James did. I suppose it wasn't possible, but I would have liked VM to have played with him a little more. VM does seem to like to brag about his prowess. And while he is bragging, his enemies scheme to evade him. I would like to have seen a bit of that. > 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the > vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too > trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed > constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and > Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's > relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night? I don't think it is unexpected that they would set down their wands for a little bit. They were in hiding - safe and a bit bored. After a time, they are bound to relax a bit. I am surprised to some extent that Harry isn't more understanding of Dumbledore and Grindelwald's friendship. None of my childhood friends turned out to be brutal cold-blooded killers like VM or Grindelwald, but I not all of them turned out to be paragons of virtue either. One creepy guy I dated around that time turned out to be a bit of a stalker. Fortunately, I went far away from him for college. The point is, people DO sometimes change substantially around that age. Laura W. -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 18:40:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:40:46 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182441 Alla wrote: > > I have to concede that **something** was being done **by the members of the order**. I do not see it as nearly enough, but yes, sure they did something. > > I have not seen anything in your examples that somebody else except the members of the Order did something. > > Oh wait, there is Xeno. He printed the truth, yes and then betrayed Trio. Here is one person who is not from the order. Carol responds: Poor Xeno. Naturally, he was more worried about his own daughter's life than Harry's. Too bad he was so weak, but, like Hermione, I'm glad that he wasn't killed. And the Order members must have been doing more than wireless broadcasts if they knew enough about what was really happening to broadcast it. However, I did think of a few more people who did *something,* all involving the Confunded Auror Dawlish. Dirk Cresswell managed to escape by Stunning him (granted, Cresswell was later killed, but not by Dawlish) and Gran Longbottom to fight Dawlish off and protect herself from capture. And *somebody* Confunded him in the first place. (My candidate is Snape, who tells Yaxley that Dawlish is "known to be susceptible" and who also Confunded Mundungus. Or maybe it was Dumbledore, who hexed him twice "with the greatest regret" before his death. If DD confunded Dawlish, snape would know about it). Not a lot going on, I realize, but we have to allow for the limited omniscient point of view, which, by definition, limits the reader's awareness of what's happening outside the perspective of the pov character even when that perspective is reliable. (JKR wanted HRH to be isolated and Snape's actions to be shrouded in mystery.) But the mere fact that Gran Longbottom showed up to fight at her age (she wasn't even a membero of the OoP) seems to suggest that at least some people were just waiting for an opportunity for open resistance and rebellion before fighting back. It's much easier to rebel as a group than as an individual. Carol, still wondering who Confunded Dawlish and why From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 21:17:59 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:17:59 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: Cease Snape discussions! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182442 > Potioncat > A few of the elves seemed to be holding something behind their > back. Potioncat assumed it was glasses of Elf-made wine. > > Potioncat glimpsed Phlytie Elf who had the extremely innocent > expression worn only by the incredibly guilty. > > > As she left, Potioncat almost thought she heard a tiny voice > saying, "Let's ban something else and see if can get some > fire-whiskey." Phlytie Elf watched as Potioncat's back disappeared through the kitchen portal and the picture closed. He could not help but smile as he brought out from behind his back a vial, in it an acid green liquid the same color as one of Rita Skeeter's Quick Quote Quills. "That was brilliant, Phlytie," said Marvin Elf clapping him on the back and almost causing the vial contents to spill. " Where is you getting it, the potion." "This is being the amazing thing, I is getting it from Professor Snape's stores himself," says Phlytie. "I is telling him I is needing an elixor to help Blinky Elf to stop crying out 'I hates Snape" everytime she is cleaning the Slytherin common room. Professor Snape is saying this is being a worthwhile cause." "But what is you getting Phlytie?" inquires Zippy Elf. "Is we getting in trouble for using this?" Twisp Elf jumps in with, "Oh no, Zippy, Professor Snape uses this on himself to counter Professor Mad-Eye's hex. He is adding something to it for us elvses. But I is then adding a new ingredient making this the Say The Opposite Phrase, Speak Nothing And Pass Elixor, Take Heed Regarding Elves Admins: Desist Snape-ology." Phlytie nods fervently, making his floppy ears flap like little bat wings and his nose almost dips into the vial. "I is sprinkling it on the thread with all the chatter. It is making any witch and wizard unable to speak of their favorite character's name, only their least favorite character, or not speak at all." "So Potioncat is never knowing what makes her not speak Snape's name. In other words, this potion got the cat's tongue. Ironic, isn't it?" "Oh Phlytie, is this being why I can still write Snape's name on this thread?" asks Alika Elf. "Well, not exactly, Alika. When Twisp is adding the Admin ingredients, he is making us elvses immune. So you can be saying whatever you wants." Phlytie says with another wicked smile. Corbie Elf leans over and looks inside the vial. As she straightens back up she says in a low whisper, "So, can we use some more to get some Fire-Whiskey? Not for me you understand, I is needing some for my cooking, I is making flambe' for the next going away feast. Umm,... yeah, that's what I needs it for." "Sorry, Corbie," Phlytie chirps, "This potion was only being good for one day, Fred and George's birthday. But I heard Vexxy saying she has thought of new spells for vexing the Sirs and Misses. Ask her!" From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 21:41:11 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:41:11 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182443 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > I think it is a reasonable assumption to make if they did > come to fight after listening broadcasts that they may have > adopted something suggested. zanooda: It was not just a suggestion. Here are the exact Kingsley's words in that broadcast: "... we continue to hear truly inspirational stories of wizards and witches risking their own safety to protect Muggle friends and neighbors, often without the Muggles' knowledge" (p.440). Only after saying that, Kingsley appeals to the rest of the wizards to follow this example. So wizards (at least some of them) protecting Muggles is not a guess, it's a fact (if we are to believe Kingsley, of course :-)). From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Apr 6 21:46:04 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 14:46:04 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0804061446t5814180blc1def079dbfc968c@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182444 Julie: As it is now we have to *assume* some people were fighting back Lynda: Yep! I don't have a problem with that myself since it gives my imagination more free rein which is a lot of the reason I love reading. I can imagine all types of things that are not in the text but would make sense. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 6 23:43:58 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:43:58 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182445 --- "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > > bboyminn: > > > > Just from memory of course - > > > > - The Order tracked the movement of known Death Eaters. > > Alla: > > I understand that you said from memory, but do you mind > referring me to the quote, please? As it is phrased, I am > having a hard time qualifying it as doing something to help > the fight. ... > bboyminn: First, one would assume you knew the books well enough to recognize these mentions. Second, I'm not limiting myself to DH. Any time after Voldemort came back that some one did something to assist the good side and thereby resist the bad side, it counts in my book. In fact, considering how oppressive and dangerous the environment had become in DH, one would certainly expect less to happen, and reasonably expect more of what does happen to be COVERT rather than overt. It would be shear suicide to openly oppose the DE's who have taken over the Ministry and are acting more and more in the open, and further as they gain control, acting with brutal impunity. It is one thing to /give/ your life for a cause, but quite another to /throw it away/. Naturally, in DH people are being extremely cautious in their words, thoughts, and deeds. But outwardly cautious does not circumvent being internally outraged and looking for an opportunity to fight. The DE's are controlling the Ministry, and by extension, the press and all other sources of reliable news and information. People are being Imperiused right and left. You really don't know who you can trust. Truly, digression is the better part of valor. Again, until such time as it is time to openly fight, everyone actions must be /covert/ because the alternative is prison and/or death, and consequences of your actions can and do extend beyond yourself to your friends and family. > bboyminn: > > - Lupin lived with the Werewolves hoping to persuade them > not to join Voldemort. > > Alla: > > I was asking about them doing something in DH actually, > because we had been told about order fighting in the first > war as well. But okay, sure he lived with them and tried. > Did it lead to something in DH? > bboyminn: Does it matter if it leads somewhere? It was a job that had to be done, and they had a man to do it. Not every battle is victorious, not every avenue is productive, but you can't know that before the fact. Whatever can be done, must be done, though not to the point of foolishness or waste. > bboyminn: > > - Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, > > falsified their relationships with muggle-borns to convince > > the Ministry that those muggle-borns indeed had magical > > ancestry. > > Alla: > > Oh? I have to ask for the quote again. ... > bboyminn: --- DH; CH-13, Am Ed, HB, Pg 255 --- "Don't pretend, Runcorn," said Mr. Weasley fiercely. "You tracked down the wizard who faked his family tree, didn't you." --- end quote --- > bboyminn: > > - Wizards cast spells on their muggle neighbor's homes to > > protect them. > > Alla: > > That would have been a nice example, sure. But where are you > getting this from? I remember Kingsley asking people to do > it on forecast, but doing it? > bboyminn: This has already been quoted by someone else, but I'll repeat it. --- DH; Ch-22, Am Ed, HB, Pg 440 --- [Kingsly] "...we continue to hear truly inspirational stories of wizards and witches risking their own safety to protect Muggle friends and neighbors, often without the Muggle's knowledge." > > bboyminn: > > - They formed an underground radio station to keep the wizard > > world informed of what was really going on. > > Alla: > > Sure members of the order did. > bboyminn: And this is exactly what the American and Europeans did during WWII; 'Voice of America' radio comes to mind. This was no small or inconsequential effort. Where propaganda and misinformation reign, the truth alone is a powerful weapon. > > bboyminn: > > - This quote from the broadcast - on the likelihood of the > > death of Harry - "...it would strike a deadly blow at the > > moral of those resisting the new regime...". > > Alla: > > Yes, but again where are they? > bboyminn: Where do you think they are? Where do you think they should be? As I and others have pointed out repeatedly, we don't see this because Harry has no way of seeing or knowing it. Further, as is often pointed out, in this type of war, at this stage in that war, these actions are COVERT, meaning unseen. > > > > bboyminn: > > - I suspect the rain in the offices of certain /new/ Ministry > > officials was not an accident. > > Alla: > > you are not seriously suggesting that throwing water at the > people in their offices counts as antiVoldemort resistance? > > bboyminn: As others have pointed out, harassment of the enemy is a critical component of a stealthy covert war like this. > bboyminn: > >> - When it all started going down at Hogwarts, the wizard > > world rallied and came to the fight. > > Alla: > > Yes, one and only battle, sure. > > bboyminn: How many all out battles did you want? How many of these 'all out' battles did you expect Harry to see or know about? Since there are no standing armies, and even if there were, they would be under the control of the Ministry, who and how did you imagine they would fight? Again, even the French Resistance was about intelligence gathering, harassment, and assistance to the Allies, not about all-out, head-on battles. That was the best they could do until some outside force could be rallied to come in and actually fight a head-on battle. When the opportunity arose to fight this head-on battle, people rallied, until then, their action HAD to remain underground. That is that nature of this aspect of war. > bboyminn: > > But again remember, this is not the story of the adults. > > They inevitably remain in the background. Even Neville and > > the DA to some extent remain in the background, we hear > > about them mostly second hand or after the fact. > > Alla: > > Yes I know this is not the story of the adults, what I am > saying is that I do not see enough being done even on the > background. > bboyminn: This has been repeatedly explained to you. You don't see it because Harry doesn't see it, and he doesn't see it because he is not in a position that allows him to see it. He is mostly cut off from the wizard world. Again, I'm not sure what it is you expect to see. No one would ever read this book, and not logically suppose that we are only going to be allowed to see a hint of the tip of the iceberg that is occurring off page. > > bboyminn: > > > So, while we don't really see a lot being done, it is clear > > that something is going on in the background. > > > Alla: > > Even though I disagree with a lot of your examples, I have > to concede that **something** was being done **by the members > of the order**. ... bboyminn: First we do have hints that ordinary people are doing what they can. Second, by the time we reach DH, while the need has become greater to do /something/, the ability to do so has been immensely curtailed. With DE's controlling the Ministry, and in a sense, holding students hostage at Hogwarts, and operating more boldly, more openly, and more ruthlessly, any obvious overt action would be, as I have said, suicide. Also, keep in mind that the wizard world is small, likely in the four digit range, meaning several thousand, but probably not 10's of thousands. Taking over a country is one thing, but taking over a small town of several thousand, a town with limited resources and a dependency on a clearly corrupted government, that town would be helpless in the beginning. Helpless in the beginning, but gradually underground, covert, harassment would begin and continue until such time as it would be possible to organize a direct offensive resistance, but that would come slow. You don't build an organized army easily under the watchful, oppressive, and ruthless eye of the enemy. You seem to have a very skewed view of how easily these things can be done, and how quickly they can be done. It is easy, from your arm chair, to say somebody should have done something, but when it is your life on the line, or that of your family, you would certainly be far less eager to throw those lives away on fruitless pointless actions. Hey...I'm just saying... Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 00:12:44 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:12:44 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182446 zanooda: It was not just a suggestion. Here are the exact Kingsley's words in that broadcast: "... we continue to hear truly inspirational stories of wizards and witches risking their own safety to protect Muggle friends and neighbors, often without the Muggles' knowledge" (p.440). Only after saying that, Kingsley appeals to the rest of the wizards to follow this example. So wizards (at least some of them) protecting Muggles is not a guess, it's a fact (if we are to believe Kingsley, of course :-)). Alla: Thanks :-) bboyminn: First, one would assume you knew the books well enough to recognize these mentions. Alla: Oh, wow. Sorry for not living up to your expectations Steve. I recognized some, did not recognize some and thought some were not what you interpreted them to be. And then I asked for quotes, which is sort of a tradition on the list if one either does not remember or wants to challenge something. > bboyminn: > > - Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, > > falsified their relationships with muggle-borns to convince > > the Ministry that those muggle-borns indeed had magical > > ancestry. > > Alla: > > Oh? I have to ask for the quote again. ... > bboyminn: --- DH; CH-13, Am Ed, HB, Pg 255 --- "Don't pretend, Runcorn," said Mr. Weasley fiercely. "You tracked down the wizard who faked his family tree, didn't you." Alla: How does this translate into "Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, falsified their relationships with muggle-borns to convince the Ministry that those muggle-borns indeed had magical ancestry" In this quote I see a wizard who maybe muggleborn himself and faked his family tree to save himself. I surely do not see somebody in particular or WW in general doing it FOR HIM. bboyminn: How many all out battles did you want? How many of these 'all out' battles did you expect Harry to see or know about? Since there are no standing armies, and even if there were, they would be under the control of the Ministry, who and how did you imagine they would fight? Alla: Those DE maybe whose movements they are tracking? One or two besides the final needed for the plot, one or two to show that somebody else is engaging DE besides Harry and his friends, somewhere. Bboyminn: You seem to have a very skewed view of how easily these things can be done, and how quickly they can be done. It is easy, from your arm chair, to say somebody should have done something, but when it is your life on the line, or that of your family, you would certainly be far less eager to throw those lives away on fruitless pointless actions. Alla: This is a straw man. I did not ask WW to throw those lives away on fruitless pointless actions. I expressed my dislike of WW not doing anything or as I conceded doing something but not doing enough in my opinion while awaiting for chosen one to save them in my opinion as well. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 04:07:17 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:07:17 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182447 bboyminn quoted: > > --- DH; CH-13, Am Ed, HB, Pg 255 --- > > "Don't pretend, Runcorn," said Mr. Weasley fiercely. "You tracked down the wizard who faked his family tree, didn't you." Alla responded: > > How does this translate into "Members of the Ministry, and wizard world in general, falsified their relationships with muggle-borns to convince the Ministry that those muggle-borns indeed had magical ancestry" In this quote I see a wizard who maybe muggleborn himself and faked his family tree to save himself. I surely do not see somebody in particular or WW in general doing it FOR HIM. Carol responds: We have a bit of a problem with ambiguity here. "His" refers to Creswell, but is Cresswell also "the wizard who faked his family tree"? IOW, did Cresswell fake his own family tree, as you seem to be reading the sentence, or is "the [unnamed] wizard who faked {Creswell's] family tree" someone else? I read "You tracked down the wizard who faked his family tree" as meaning that Runcorn tracked down an unnamed wizard who faked Dirk Cresswell's family tree, not Cresswell himself. Why would Runcorn need to track down Cresswell, who works in the Ministry, or did until Runcorn informed on him? And it would be odd for Mr. Weasley to refer to Cresswell as "the wizard who faked his [own] family tree" when Cresswell has just been named. He'd call him by some variant of his name, not as "the wizard," which suggests that Mr. Weasley doesn't know the wizard's name. Moreover, Dirk Cresswell can't be the only wizard who faked a family tree or had it faked, as "the wizard who faked his [own] family tree suggests. ("The," in contrast to "a," is specific and points to only one person or thing, known or unknown, just as *the* Half-Blood Prince is specific and suggests that the HBP is the only one of his kind. The Wizard who faked Dirk Cresswell's family tree would also be just one person.) It may help to look at the passage in context: "'One moment, Runcorn.' "The lift doors closed and as they clanked down another floor, Mr. Weasley said, 'I hear you laid information about Dirk Cresswell.' "Harry . . . decided that his best chance was to act stupid. 'Sorry?' he said. "'Don't pretend, Runcorn,' said Mr. Weasley fiercely. "You tracked down the wizard who faked his family tree, didn't you?' "'I--so what if I did?' said Harry. "'So Dirk Cresswell is ten times the wizard you are,' said Mr. Weasley quietly . . . . 'And if he survives Azkaban, you'll have to answer to him, not to mention his wife, his sons, and his friends--'" (DH Am. ed. 255). I can see why you would think that Cresswell is in Azkaban (which, BTW, he escapes by Confunding Dawlish) for faking his own family tree, but, as I understand it, he's being sent there for the "crime" of being a Muggle-born, just like many others in the WW. In his case, he was also trying to keep his important Ministry job as Head of the Goblin Liaison Office (and, presumably, for retaining possession of a wand), so he'd be a very important prisoner. As I read the sentence, "his" does refer to Cresswell, but "the wizard who faked [Cresswell's] family tree" is someone else altogether. (As I said earlier, Mr. Weasley doesn't seem to know this Wizard's name.) Whether the Wizard faked Cresswell's family tree for a price or as a favor to Cresswell or as an act of rebellion against LV's regime is not clear, but, if I'm correct in my interpretation, he certainly wasn't faking someone else's family tree to save himself. *If* one wizard is faking family trees (and being hunted down by the likes of Runcorn for doing so), it's at least possible that other Half-blood or Pure-Blood Wizards are faking family trees for Muggle-borns. Even if such people charge for their services, they're taking a great risk of being discovered and tortured or imprisoned or both. Carol, wondering what happened to the unknown Wizard who (seemingly) faked Cresswell's family tree and to Cresswell's wife and sons From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 7 04:09:29 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:09:29 -0000 Subject: Imperalisk/ChapterDiscussion/UnbreakableVow/Fiendfyre/UmDementbridge/Herodoto Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182448 Carol wrote in : << Only if the Dark Wizard know Parseltongue, the only language that the Basilisk understands. And since it obeys the Parselmouth, anyway, the Imperius Curse would be unnecessary. >> That depends on how the Imperius Curse works, and I gather we have different ideas of that. There may be some question of whether the Imperius Curse works on animals or whether basilisks in general are immune to magic and can be harmed (or cured) only by Muggle means, but I believe one could cast the Imperius Curse on a human who knows no language but Parseltongue. He doesn't have to understand what 'Imperio' means. There are other spells, like 'Locomotor trunk', which work on inanimate objects, which by definition don't understand the verbal incantation. So, when giving a command to a basilisk (or human) who is under the Imperius Curse, does the command have to be given in a language the Imperi-ee understand? Does it have to be spoken? Does it have to be given in language at all? Maybe I can just make a mental image in my mind of what I want the basilisk to do, and the magic will make the basilisk obey my order without even being aware that I gave an order. AKH summarised Chapter 17 in : << 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing? >> Some kinds of snakes find their prey by sensing heat rather than by seeing. Rattlesnakes. Pit vipers. I admit that I've never understood HOW the pits sense heat. Potioncat wrote in : << It's still interesting to me that Narcissa will ask for a magical vow from her friend, but DD does not ask one of his enemy. >> Yes, why didn't he? Back when I thought Dumbledore was Good, it was reasonable to think that he would refuse to accept an Unbreakable Vow because he was too Good to coerce a person's will or too Good to kill a person, Pippin wrote in : << IMO, fiendfyre summons the fiery fiends (probably Luna's heliopaths) >> You think? For some reason, I had envisioned heliopaths as looking like dust devils made of fire instead of dust, not as looking like Muggle wild animals, which IIRC is how the Fiendfyre was described. And I had imagined the fiery beasts to be manifestations of the fire, like 'tongues of flame' darting out of even a tame campfire, rather than as individual beings. But much that I imagine turns out to be wrong. Wasn't Luna's theory that Fudge was raising an army of heliopaths, concealed in a room in the Department of Mysteries? Was the Ministry actually doing something with Fiendfyre? Carol wrote in : << I don't think that Umbridge wanted them to suck his soul; she only wanted them to force him to cast a corporeal Patronus so that he could be tried and expelled--and DD discredited. >> I think she did want them to suck his soul. I don't think she planned how she would claim afterwards that the Dementors are firmly controlled by the Ministry. Pippin wrote in : << "War violates the order of nature and causes parents to bury their children "-- Herodotus. >> Yes, but considering the infant and childhood mortality rates in Herodotos's time, I never understand how he and his contemporaries could think that parents burying their children wasn't the order of nature. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 7 14:26:57 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:26:57 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182449 > Carol wrote in > : > > << Only if the Dark Wizard know Parseltongue, the only language that > the Basilisk understands. And since it obeys the Parselmouth, anyway, > the Imperius Curse would be unnecessary. >> >Catlady: > > So, when giving a command to a basilisk (or human) who is under the > Imperius Curse, does the command have to be given in a language the > Imperi-ee understand? Does it have to be spoken? Does it have to be > given in language at all? Maybe I can just make a mental image in my > mind of what I want the basilisk to do, and the magic will make the > basilisk obey my order without even being aware that I gave an order. Potioncat: I just happened to be in the Gringotts chapter of DH. Harry uses the Imperius Curse on Travers. All he does is say Imperio and Travers takes off. Hermione (or was it Ron?) had to ask Harry what Travers was doing. Harry says that he's hiding. So it appears Harry casts the curse and thinks what he wants Travers to do. But it looks like, having the command to hide, Travers uses his own wits to find a hiding place. I was absolutely shocked. I must have read right over this without taking it in the first time and I don't even recall any discussion about Harry and the Imperius Curse. But here it is. He uses it several times in this chapter. There's even a discription of how it feels to use that power. It doesn't really bother me that he uses this curse. It gets the bad guys out of the way. I'm not upset at an AK in battle. The only one that bothers me is Harry casting the Cruciatus Curse. Potioncat, thinking she should go back and re-read some DH chapeter discussions. From ceridwennight at hotmail.com Mon Apr 7 15:14:27 2008 From: ceridwennight at hotmail.com (Ceridwen) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 15:14:27 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182450 Potioncat: > I was absolutely shocked. I must have read right over this without > taking it in the first time and I don't even recall any discussion > about Harry and the Imperius Curse. But here it is. He uses it several > times in this chapter. There's even a discription of how it feels to > use that power. Ceridwen: I don't mind the use of Imperius in such situations, and I wouldn't mind if Aurors used it to stop a fleeing felon or to secure one already caught. I would mind if they used it to force someone into implicating themselves, such as a Muggle sting operation might do. I can also see uses for the AK outside of battle: if the WW ever had executions, it seems like a humane way to go about it; and, as in the case of Snape and Dumbledore, it can be used for euthanasia. But I draw the line at Cruciatus. Its sole intent is to torture. I think it must have come from a more violent past when it was all right to torture information out of people just to assuage the anger of the caster, given that Imperius exists. Unless Cruciatus came before Imperius, with Imperius being an alternative (and kinder!) way to get information. I think the Imperius was glossed over in several of the Cruciatus posts right after DH since, if I recall correctly, most people seemed to agree that it made sense in the context in which it was used. Ceridwen. From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 7 18:45:51 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:45:51 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182451 > Alla: Let's see who was HAPPY about Voldemort's reign. On the top > of my head I remember Bella and . Bella. Fake Moody would have been > happy I grant you that. Pippin: Off the top of *my* head, Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Umbridge and Runcorn were enthusiastic, to say the least. > Pippin: > This whole argument takes the events of DH out of context. Scrimgeour had a whole year during which the Ministry attempted to counter Voldemort with all the resources it could command, including far more professional dark wizard fighters than were part of the Order. It didn't work. > > Why should the Order adopt the same failed tactics? > > Alla: > > What failed tactics? I remember Scrimgeour desperately trying to make Harry work with him. Pippin: Yikes! Who are you, and what have you done with the real Alla? The burden of this thread, IIRC, was that the WW should have been able to fight this war without Harry, and now you're saying that the only reason Scrimgeour failed was that Harry wouldn't help him? LOL! *Whoever* undertook to fight this war, whether it was Harry or somebody else, would face the same problem that Harry, Dumbledore and Scrimgeour faced. The WW was so fractured that nearly everyone was struggling with divided loyalties. You had your choice of a team that was too small, loyal but overburdened, or one that was big enough to do the job but by the law of averages bound to include either someone who could be subverted or someone too careless to keep a secret from those who had been subverted already. What I'm saying is that Scrimgeour had a year to try the big team approach, and he failed. It is canon fact that when Harry did include others in his search, it wasn't long before someone loyal to the DE's found out what he was doing. It didn't matter because Voldemort had already realized that his horcruxes were in peril, but it would have mattered if Voldemort had realized that they were in danger sooner. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 7 19:17:18 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:17:18 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182452 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > Though of course, I think what Betsy is questioning is why this is > all anybody thought they could manage. It's not unbelievable, for > instance, that Harry and his friends slip out of the DE's grasp for > months. Pippin: It was what they thought they could manage without provoking massive retaliation against innocent people, IMO. Umbridge was at least concerned to find the guilty parties. But Voldemort wouldn't have cared -- he'd happily execute innocent people as a warning to the others. History shows this method of deterrence is quite effective if you have the stomach for it. Besides that, if you get 90% of your work done in a bombed-out office, you're a hero. But nobody's going to want to tell his superiors that wand confiscations are down 10% because of some stupid practical joke. You'd keep your head down, bury the bad news in bureaucratic obfuscation, and hope that the pranksters pick on somebody else next week. So now not only is work not getting done, the bosses don't know about it. Downside, neither does anyone else. But the idea is to hinder the enemy, not to do stuff just to make it look like your doing something, right? > > Magpie: Harry had very smooth sailing around all those kinds of potentially more humiliating and humbling conflicts and challenges. The book wasn't ever going there, it turned out. Pippin: Harry did have to humble himself to someone who hated him. He had to surrender to Voldemort, who abused his body and displayed it to Harry's grieving friends. It's true we don't see Harry ever choosing to humble himself to someone *he* hated. But why should he? Why shouldn't canon say that you don't have to choose to humble yourself to someone you hate, because if you have the choice not to humble yourself, you have the choice not to hate also? Betsy Hp: This is part of the reason I don't see this series as a coming of age tale. Harry remains Dumbledore's good little baby boy: obedient even unto death. And that's how he wins. (Huh... A sign of Tom's evilness was his independence... I think there's something there, actually. Perhaps JKR is saying we *shouldn't* grow up?) Pippin: Put down your coffee, I sort of agree with you. JKR doesn't see coming of age as achieving independence, IMO. You come of age in canon when you cease to focus on independence and start to see that we are all, like it or not, deeply dependent on one another. Harry was not Dumbledore's man because he depended on Dumbledore. He was Dumbledore's man (and I think after King's Cross he would continue to say so) because Dumbledore could depend on him. Pippin From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 19:24:03 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:24:03 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182453 Carol: As I read the sentence, "his" does refer to Cresswell, but "the wizard who faked [Cresswell's] family tree" is someone else altogether. (As I said earlier, Mr. Weasley doesn't seem to know this Wizard's name.) Whether the Wizard faked Cresswell's family tree for a price or as a favor to Cresswell or as an act of rebellion against LV's regime is not clear, but, if I'm correct in my interpretation, he certainly wasn't faking someone else's family tree to save himself. Alla: Snipping arbitrarily just to say that I see your point. I think my interpretation is valid, but I see that yours can be valid too. > Alla: Let's see who was HAPPY about Voldemort's reign. On the top > of my head I remember Bella and . Bella. Fake Moody would have been > happy I grant you that. Pippin: Off the top of *my* head, Crabbe, Goyle, Pansy, Umbridge and Runcorn were enthusiastic, to say the least. Alla: Okay, five people, but my point is that it is still a very low number in comparison to those who were not happy. IMO of course. Alla: > > What failed tactics? I remember Scrimgeour desperately trying to make Harry work with him. Pippin: Yikes! Who are you, and what have you done with the real Alla? The burden of this thread, IIRC, was that the WW should have been able to fight this war without Harry, and now you're saying that the only reason Scrimgeour failed was that Harry wouldn't help him? LOL! Alla: LOL, not at all. What I am saying is that you were arguing that Scrimgeour tried something for a year and fail and that Order should not have tried same failed tactics, no? And I am saying that the only tactics I remember Scrimgeour trying was attempting to work with Harry, zis all. So, I am just not sure what tactics you think Order should not have adopted that Scrimgeour did. Sorry for being unclear. The fact that Scrimgeour did not get the big team, does not mean to me that if he would have gotten the big team, it would have been worse somehow. Pippin: It is canon fact that when Harry did include others in his search, it wasn't long before someone loyal to the DE's found out what he was doing. It didn't matter because Voldemort had already realized that his horcruxes were in peril, but it would have mattered if Voldemort had realized that they were in danger sooner. Alla: Are you talking about Pansy or something else here? I mean, if we are talking about Pansy, I think it is a great example of the opposite as well. Yes, sure she found out that Harry is here, but at the same time others overpowered her in a sense and continued to help IMO. It is just, I wish it all had been done earlier. If we are talking about different accident, could you tell me which one? From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 20:17:34 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:17:34 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182454 > Pippin: > *Whoever* undertook to fight this war, whether it was Harry or > somebody else, would face the same problem that Harry, Dumbledore and > Scrimgeour faced. The WW was so fractured that nearly everyone was > struggling with divided loyalties. You had your choice of a team that > was too small, loyal but overburdened, or one that was big enough to > do the job but by the law of averages bound to include either someone > who could be subverted or someone too careless to keep a secret from > those who had been subverted already. Montavilla47: That's a really interesting way of putting it, Pippin. And, when you do put that way, Harry's refusal to trust the Order does make sense. After all, *someone* let slip about their escape plan from Privet Drive. And, because of that slip, Mad-Eye Moody died and George was permanently disfigured. However, Harry was quite adamant at that point that the Order *was* trustworthy. The sad irony is that the traitor was their general, Dumbledore, who ordered Snape to leak the information. Pippin: > What I'm saying is that Scrimgeour had a year to try the big team > approach, and he failed. > > It is canon fact that when Harry did include others in his search, it > wasn't long before someone loyal to the DE's found out what he was > doing. It didn't matter because Voldemort had already realized that > his horcruxes were in peril, but it would have mattered if Voldemort > had realized that they were in danger sooner. Montavilla47: But those loyal to the DE (I assume you mean Crabbe and possibly Goyle) didn't find out because Harry decided to let other people help. They found out because McGonagall alerted the school that Voldemort was coming. Or, if you're talking about Alecto (who alerted Voldemort), IIRC, she found out because she was hiding in the Ravenclaw Common room, having been warned by Voldemort that Harry might show up there. Which happened when Voldemort learned about Harry escaping from the bank. Which again, wasn't due to his getting help from Griphook, but simply because they botched the heist. From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Mon Apr 7 20:24:27 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:24:27 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182455 Magpie: In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" > > Though of course, I think what Betsy is questioning is why this is > > all anybody thought they could manage. It's not unbelievable, for > > instance, that Harry and his friends slip out of the DE's grasp for > > months. > > Pippin: > It was what they thought they could manage without provoking massive > retaliation against innocent people, IMO. Umbridge was at least > concerned to find the guilty parties. But Voldemort wouldn't have > cared -- he'd happily execute innocent people as a warning to the > others. History shows this method of deterrence is quite effective if > you have the stomach for it. Magpie: There's no indication this idea is stopping anybody from doing anything. Nobody is afraid that the rain in the office is going to get anyone killed that we see. It's handled pretty much the way the pranks against Umbridge are. Pippin: > Besides that, if you get 90% of your work done in a bombed-out office, > you're a hero. But nobody's going to want to tell his superiors that > wand confiscations are down 10% because of some stupid practical joke. > You'd keep your head down, bury the bad news in bureaucratic > obfuscation, and hope that the pranksters pick on somebody else next > week. So now not only is work not getting done, the bosses don't know > about it. Downside, neither does anyone else. But the idea is to > hinder the enemy, not to do stuff just to make it look like your doing > something, right? Magpie: So somebody pranked this one guy because they thought they could keep it off Voldemort's radar, but you can't really mess things up because Voldemort might notice and get mad. Keep your head down. We don't hear of any mass slaughter resulting from the Trio's grand standing at the MoM. Did they do something awful that got people killed there? It frankly doesn't seem like Voldemort is taking much interest in productivity the way you're describing here. Somebody pranked somebody they didn't like at the office in a way that didn't risk much or have all that much effect. > > Magpie: > Harry had very smooth sailing around all those kinds of potentially > more humiliating and humbling conflicts and challenges. The book > wasn't ever going there, it turned out. > > Pippin: > Harry did have to humble himself to someone who hated him. He had to > surrender to Voldemort, who abused his body and displayed it to > Harry's grieving friends. Magpie: Harry's not humbling himself, he's martyring himself. He's completely right and Voldemort is completely wrong. Pippin: > It's true we don't see Harry ever choosing to humble himself to > someone *he* hated. But why should he? Why shouldn't canon say that > you don't have to choose to humble yourself to someone you hate, > because if you have the choice not to humble yourself, you have the > choice not to hate also? Magpie: He doesn't have to. I was just describing what kind of development Betsy was imo talking about. Which isn't about Harry humbling himself before others but having experiences which are humbling. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 20:27:10 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 20:27:10 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182456 Potioncat wrote: > > I was absolutely shocked. I must have read right over this without taking it in the first time and I don't even recall any discussion about Harry and the Imperius Curse. But here it is. He uses it several times in this chapter. There's even a discription of how it feels to use that power. Ceridwen: > I don't mind the use of Imperius in such situations, and I wouldn't mind if Aurors used it to stop a fleeing felon or to secure one already caught. I would mind if they used it to force someone into implicating themselves, such as a Muggle sting operation might do. > > I can also see uses for the AK outside of battle: if the WW ever had executions, it seems like a humane way to go about it; and, as in the case of Snape and Dumbledore, it can be used for euthanasia. > > But I draw the line at Cruciatus. Its sole intent is to torture. I think it must have come from a more violent past when it was all right to torture information out of people just to assuage the anger of the caster, given that Imperius exists. > > I think the Imperius was glossed over in several of the Cruciatus posts right after DH since, if I recall correctly, most people seemed to agree that it made sense in the context in which it was used. Carol responds: I don't recall Harry's Imperius Curses being glossed over in the discussions. It's more that they could at least be justified by the situation, and Harry is using the Imperius humanely (getting Travers out of the way without hurting him) or out of sheer necessity (getting the old Goblin, Bogrod, to take them to Bellatrix's vault and then to open it. Evidently, Confundus would not have worked; Harry had to command the Goblin to do what he needed him to do, and the Goblin needed him to be thinking straight. Possibly the first Imperius Curse, cast while Bogrod is examining the wand, and the second, cast on the watching Travers, were unnecessary; a Confundus Charm like the ones used on the guards might have worked. But once Travers starts following them and Harry makes him come with them, Harry is more or less trapped into continuing what he started. Since Travers can't get in the cart with them (they wouldn't want him there, anyway), another Imperius Curse (the first one was too weak) is more or less necessary to get him out of their way, and what better way than to make him hide? I actually think that Harry was being unusually clever or quick-thinking here (as he is later with the idea of escaping on the dragon's back). And Bogrod certainly would not have opened the vault after their identities had been revealed by the magical waterfall washing away the enchantments (even Polyjuice) that they'd used to disguise Hermione and Ron, as well as the Imperius Curse itself (Harry has already taken off the Invisibility Cloak, revealing himself and Griphook, which he could not have done, either, had Travers and Bogrod not been Imperiused--or, at least, Confunded), so unless they want Bogrod to call out that imposters are trying to break into the Lestranges' vault, Harry has no choice but to Imperius him yet again. (It would be interesting to compare and contrast this situation with Snape's use of the Confundus Charm on Mundungus; Snape did get Mundungus to do what he wanted him to do and to think that it was his own idea, but Snape is, of course, more practiced in that sort of thing than Harry, so he can evidently do what he needs to do with a mere Confundus Charm without resorting to Imperius.) At any rate, like Potioncat this time around, I was shocked on my first reading by Harry's use of an Unforgiveable Curse suggested to him by the less-than-ethical Griphook, and I was surprised that he could cast even one, much less four (two each for Travers and Bogrod, the first two being too weak to last through the whole adventure). It seemed at the time as if everything we had learned about Unforgiveable Curses (except "You have to mean them") was being turned on its head. Of course, there was the precedent of the Aurors being authorized to use them on DEs, and Travers is a DE perilously close to realizing that "Bellatrix" isn't Bellatrix (and there's no indication from his behavior in DH that his loyalty to LV is wavering). And there's also the precedent of Snape, so I'm sure that part of me was wondering whether his Unforgiveable Curse, too, was justified by circumstances and hoping that DD had, indeed, ordered or requested him to use that AK. It seems that the Imperius Curse is "Unforgiveable" not because he can't be used for good purposes but because of its potential for abuse. (It certainly would be dangerous to teach it to Hogwarts students, for example.) Harry's use of the Imperius Curse in the Gringotts break-in is very different, IMO, from his later use of the Cruciatus Curse on amycus Carrow at Hogwarts. Yes, Carrow, like Travers, is a Death Eater (albeit a stupid one), but, unlike Travers, he's posing no threat, and neither Harry nor anyone else is in immediate danger. Carrow is not on the verge of realizing that Harry is present under the Invisibility Cloak, nor has he done anything life-threatening. (Spitting on someone is disgusting and revolting, not to mention insulting and the ultimate indication of disrespect, but it isn't dangerous.) Nor can the Cruciatus Curse or any other spell prevent Voldemort's impending arrival. So, while the Imperius Curses, a desperation measure when HRH are on an urgent and unrepeatable mission (if they fail, there's no second chance to retrieve the Hufflepuff cup, which must be destroyed if Voldemort is to be made mortal) can be justified, I don't think that the Cruciatus Curse can be, either in this situation or ever. Its sole purpose is to cause intense pain, and Harry is using it out of vengeance, not necessity. It is not defensive magic (neither is the Imperius Curse, yet Harry manages to use it defensively), and a Stunning Spell or a Full Body Bind or Incarcerus (complete with gag) would have served the purpose at least as effectively and more humanely. (At least Travers and the Imperiused Goblin, Bogrod, suffered no pain and apparently no lasting consequences from Harry's rather weak and unsustained Imperius Curses--Or do they? I thought that Travers showed up again as his usual DE self at the Battle of Hogwarts, but it turns out to be Yaxley.) Had Harry been using the Imperius Curse to control them or to make them do something dangerous to themselves or others, as Barty Jr. used it to make Viktor Krum Crucio Cedric Diggory, its use would not have been justified, IMO. One thing I found interesting was the sensation that Harry felt when he cast the Imperius Curse, "a sensation of tingling warmth that seemed to flow from his mind, down the sinews and veins connecting him to the wand and the curse it had just cast" (DH Am. ed. 531). Later, the narrator refers again to "the sense of heady control that flowed from brain to wand" (535). It's easy to see how such a curse could become addictive (Mulciber becomes an Imperius specialist, in contrast to Bellatrix, who enjoys the more sadistic Cruciatus Curse; the Imperius Curse, as we know from GoF, causes a sensation of pleasure similar to what a man feels listening to or watching a Veela. BTW, I don't quite understand the purpose of Hermione's Shield Charm, which "[breaks] the flow of enchanted water as it [flies] up the passageway" (535). Would the water (either by its mere presence or through some spell) have revealed to the already suspicious Goblins that imposters using magical concealment had entered the lower depths of Gringotts? I suppose it would need to do so; otherwise, only Bogrod would see the intruders' identities revealed, and he would have been killed, along with HRH and Griphook, when the car derailed and hit the wall if not for Hermione's Cushioning Charm. And yet, the Goblins come down after them, anyway, so the Shield Charm served no purpose that I can see. Carol, who wonders what happened to poor Bogrod (and to the not-so-pitiable Travers), both of whom must have recovered from the unsustained Imperius Curse From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 7 21:37:06 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:37:06 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182457 > Potioncat wrote: > > > I was absolutely shocked. Potioncat now: I'm reading this with my son, and I blurted out, "It didn't happen this way the first time I read it." "Don't worry Mom, they probably just Oblivated you. Keep reading." was his reaction--or something to that effect. > Ceridwen: > > I don't mind the use of Imperius in such situations, and I wouldn't > mind if Aurors used it to stop a fleeing felon or to secure one > already caught. I would mind if they used it to force someone into > implicating themselves, such as a Muggle sting operation might do. Potioncat: I agree. > Carol responds: snip I actually think that Harry was being unusually clever or > quick-thinking here (as he is later with the idea of escaping on the > dragon's back). > > (It would be interesting to compare and contrast this situation with > Snape's use of the Confundus Charm on Mundungus; Snape did get > Mundungus to do what he wanted him to do and to think that it was his > own idea, but Snape is, of course, more practiced in that sort of > thing than Harry, so he can evidently do what he needs to do with a > mere Confundus Charm without resorting to Imperius.) Potioncat: Well, JKR said something about wanting the readers to know that Harry "is able" to cast these spells so that later we see he chooses not to. Something along the line of DD being too noble for some spells. Snape may have a philosophical reason for not using Iperius on Mundungus, or it may be a legal one. It could be an Azkaban trip for him at this point. But obiviously, he's able to make do with a less serious spell. > Carol: It's easy to see how such a curse could > become addictive (Mulciber becomes an Imperius specialist, in contrast > to Bellatrix, who enjoys the more sadistic Cruciatus Curse; the > Imperius Curse, as we know from GoF, causes a sensation of pleasure > similar to what a man feels listening to or watching a Veela. Potioncat: Yep, I thought that was very interesting too. Could be part of the Unforgivable nature of it. Even if you were using it for good, it seems to have an effect on the one casting the curse. > > Carol, who wonders what happened to poor Bogrod (and to the > not-so-pitiable Travers), both of whom must have recovered from the > unsustained Imperius Curse Potioncat: So did I, and not having finished the re-read, I couldn't remember if we see him again. > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 7 21:51:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 21:51:04 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182458 Magpie: > There's no indication this idea is stopping anybody from doing anything. Nobody is afraid that the rain in the office is going to get anyone killed that we see. It's handled pretty much the way the > pranks against Umbridge are. > So somebody pranked this one guy because they thought they could keep it off Voldemort's radar Carol responds: I know that you're arguing against certain points that Pippin made here, so please forgive me for ignoring those points and focusing only on the "rain" in Yaxley's office. Admittedly, such pranks are not on the scale of resistance that you're looking for, but they *are* resistance of the same sort that the weasley Twins and Lee Jordan practiced against the Umbridge regime at Hogwarts. If it's raining in Yaxley's office, Yaxley can't use his office and can't do whatever DE-oriented work he usually does there. Admittedly, it doesn't deter him from attending the "hearings" for Mrs. Cattermole and other Muggle-borns, but he isn't doing whatever he normally does as Head of Magical Law Enforcement--Madam Bones's old job. The laws he's enforcing seem to be related to the "theft" of magic by Muggle-borns. (Yaxley isn't just any DE; he's striving for LV's favor, and he seems to have been rewarded for Imperiusing Pius Thicknesse with an important Ministry position. The Ministry employees are clearly afraid of him; he's "the brutal-faced Death Eater" from HBP.) Also, Yaxley is not the only DE or LV loyalist whose office has been sabotaged by "rain": Mr. Weasley tells "Cattermole" (Ron) that "a lot of offices have been raining lately" and that "Meteolojinx Recanto worked for Bletchley" (DH Am. ed. 255). I thought at first that Bletchley was another DE whose office had been rained on (given that Miles Bletchley is a former Slytherin Keeper, but on a more careful reading, it seems that Bletchley is another Magical Maintenance worker who's had to deal with "raining" offices. My point, however, is that it's not a lone incident; someone is sabotaging "a lot" of MoM offices (apparently not including Mr. Weasley's), and at least one target, Yaxley, is a DE in a very high position in the new LV administration. Meanwhile, Mr. Weasley is standing up to the likes of Runcorn, voicing his opposition to his tactics, such as tracking down the Wizard who faked Dirk Cresswell's family tree. (Mr. Weasley, as "Runcorn" informs him, is being watched, but apparently he's protected for the moment by his Pure-Blood status.) Granted, all this is low-level opposition, but it's better than no opposition at all. At least not everyone is intimidated, or worse, going along with the Death Eaters' agenda, like the "bushily whiskered man" who hopes to get Dirk Cresswell's job now that Runcorn has outed Cresswell as a Muggle-born, or actively supporting it like Umbridge and Runcorn. Carol, who thinks that such references to sabotage and faked family trees suggest that at least a few people other than Lee Jordan and his friends are doing what they can to subvert the new administration in whatever small way is available to them From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 7 23:09:34 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2008 23:09:34 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182459 > > Magpie: > There's no indication this idea is stopping anybody from doing > anything. Nobody is afraid that the rain in the office is going to > get anyone killed that we see. It's handled pretty much the way the > pranks against Umbridge are. Pippin: The Twins tell Harry in OOP that they always consider what kind of retaliation they are going to face. They had been careful up to that point not to do anything that would get them expelled. I don't see why Rowling should have to write OOP over again -- that's the in depth look at what living under an oppressive government is like. We see enough in DH to suggest that the same kinds of things are happening, only on a larger scale. We see Voldemort engage in massive retaliation against his own DE's for the theft of the cup, and he threatens it against Hogwarts:"Anyone who continues to resist, man, woman or child,will be slaughtered as will every member of their family." We're also told that Voldemort's wrath over the destruction of the diary was terrible to behold, and that he set Draco at Dumbledore as a way to punish Lucius. > > > Magpie: > > Harry had very smooth sailing around all those kinds of > potentially more humiliating and humbling conflicts and challenges. The book wasn't ever going there, it turned out. > > > > Pippin: > > Harry did have to humble himself to someone who hated him. He had > to surrender to Voldemort, who abused his body and displayed it to > > Harry's grieving friends. > > Magpie: > Harry's not humbling himself, he's martyring himself. He's > completely right and Voldemort is completely wrong. Pippin: You're saying it would be *harder* for Harry to give himself up to someone who was right? Because otherwise I don't see why we should care. Pippin From philipwhiuk at hotmail.com Mon Apr 7 22:31:57 2008 From: philipwhiuk at hotmail.com (Philip) Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 23:31:57 +0100 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182460 Carol says: One thing I found interesting was the sensation that Harry felt when he cast the Imperius Curse, "a sensation of tingling warmth that seemed to flow from his mind, down the sinews and veins connecting him to the wand and the curse it had just cast" (DH Am. ed. 531). Later, the narrator refers again to "the sense of heady control that flowed from brain to wand" (535). It's easy to see how such a curse could become addictive (Mulciber becomes an Imperius specialist, in contrast to Bellatrix, who enjoys the more sadistic Cruciatus Curse; the Imperius Curse, as we know from GoF, causes a sensation of pleasure similar to what a man feels listening to or watching a Veela. Philip responds: I noticed this, but to be honest it sounded awfully similar to "He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head?" from Harry's first purchase of a wand in PS. Clearly the sense of connection is now deeper as Harry is further into his wizarding life, but I think this is not the curse itself. I think that the reason this curse makes him feel this is the fact that the wand has been used by its previous owner in the same way, so the wand has an affinity for these spells. As Mr Ollivander says in DH CH: 24, "Subtle laws govern wand ownership" and "The best results, however, must always come where there is the strongest affinity between wizard and a wand? These connections are complex. An initial attraction and then a mutual quest for experience?.." I think the warmth coursing through Harry is this initial attraction? not unlike the words Rowling and other authors often use concerning physical attraction, rather than a result of the spell. Personally, I believe Mulciber is just caught up in that desire for control ? he is controlled so must control others to soothe his ego? Thanks, Philip From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 02:01:07 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:01:07 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182462 > >>Pippin: > > The burden of this thread, IIRC, was that the WW should have been > able to fight this war without Harry... Betsy Hp: Right. Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been beaten before Harry was born. Or before he was even a twinkle, for that matter. What it comes down to, for me, is that when we finally see Voldemort in all his terrifying glory... he just ain't all that. Looking at his antics during DH, looking at the people he surrounded himself with, looking at how he *treated* those he surrounded himself with, it makes no sense to me that Voldemort was able to terrorize the WW so completely. [Aaaaand, this is the place where everyone rushes to tell me there are plenty of times in history when some nincompoop with delusions of granduer managed to completely subjugate a people with the help of idiots and brutes. Like Alla has pointed out before me, the usual suspects don't actually fit the bill. On the whole they had their horrifying version of genius, they had intelligent helpers, and they faced down attempts to stop them before they got too far. So, not at all like Voldemort.] I don't see what was so gosh darn unstoppable about the man that everyone in the WW hung around waiting for a Chosen One to be announced, birthed, marked and then tempered in the molton heat of life as an abused Muggle. And then once we finally *do* get to Harry, I don't see what Harry did that no one else could do. What was so *special* about this kid. He was no brain trust, to say the least. He was athletic, but not passionately so, and his particular athletic talent had nothing to do with his quest. And, despite the hype (and the buildup), Harry wasn't particularly compassionate. Heck, he wasn't really that good at teammbuilding (something I thought the horcrux hunt was setting him up to be). > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > This is part of the reason I don't see this series as a coming of > > age tale. Harry remains Dumbledore's good little baby boy: > > obedient even unto death. And that's how he wins. > > (Huh... A sign of Tom's evilness was his independence... I think > > there's something there, actually. Perhaps JKR is saying we > > *shouldn't* grow up?) > >>Pippin: > Put down your coffee, I sort of agree with you. JKR doesn't see > coming of age as achieving independence, IMO. You come of age in > canon when you cease to focus on independence and start to see that > we are all, like it or not, deeply dependent on one another. Harry > was not Dumbledore's man because he depended on Dumbledore. He was > Dumbledore's man (and I think after King's Cross he would continue > to say so) because Dumbledore could depend on him. Betsy Hp: Okay, now you put down *your* coffe cup because... Yeah, that actually makes a whole lot of sense. But! I don't like it. Which, obviously, I didn't like the overall message of the series as well as the way it was told, so that part probably isn't a surprise. And actually, if JKR does feel people are better off being dependent on others rather than independent, than it makes sense that the WW felt they needed a designated hero to go out and rid them of their big bad. Until someone was actually *assigned* the role, I suppose it would have been presumptuous for someone to just try on their own (or rally others to try with him or her). So even Dumbledore had to pretty much sit on his hands, do his bit to maintain a minimal amount of status quo, until a voice came from on high to say "here is your hero." I don't think this reflects human nature all that much. But as author JKR can make the people of her world act as she chooses. > >>Pippin: > > You're saying it would be *harder* for Harry to give himself up to > > someone who was right? Because otherwise I don't see why we should > > care. > >>Magpie: > Yeah, I'm saying that martyring yourself heroically to save others > similar to the way Jesus did would be far less humbling because it > requires none of the reassessment of himself than the storyline > Betsy had talked about pre-DH and post-DH. > Betsy Hp: Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. Something that most everyone goes through at one point or another, and something pretty standard in coming of age tales. Or really, any story where the protagonist changes. In the Disney movie, "Beauty and the Beast" the motherly teapot sings of their love beginning when they both have a "learning you were wrong" moment. I'd been hoping for Harry to have such a moment. He didn't. But I think that if JKR was writing a story that warned against being independent it makes sense that the boy chosen to be the hero was heroic from the get go. After all, he's the guy chosen from the voice on high. You don't want that guy to be wrong about anything since he's the only one able to save the day. Betsy Hp From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 02:18:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 02:18:13 -0000 Subject: Imperius Curse and Harry (was Re: re:Imperalisk/ In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182463 Carol earlier: > > > One thing I found interesting was the sensation that Harry felt when he cast the Imperius Curse, "a sensation of tingling warmth that seemed to flow from his mind, down the sinews and veins connecting him to the wand and the curse it had just cast" (DH Am. ed. 531). Later, the narrator refers again to "the sense of heady control that flowed from brain to wand" (535). It's easy to see how such a curse could become addictive (Mulciber becomes an Imperius specialist, in contrast to Bellatrix, who enjoys the more sadistic Cruciatus Curse; the Imperius Curse, as we know from GoF, causes a sensation of pleasure similar to what a man feels listening to or watching a Veela.) > > > Philip responds: > > I noticed this, but to be honest it sounded awfully similar to > > "He felt a sudden warmth in his fingers. He raised the wand above his head " from Harry's first purchase of a wand in PS. > > Clearly the sense of connection is now deeper as Harry is further into his wizarding life, but I think this is not the curse itself. > > I think that the reason this curse makes him feel this is the fact that the wand has been used by its previous owner in the same way, so the wand has an affinity for these spells. > I think the warmth coursing through Harry is this initial attraction not unlike the words Rowling and other authors often use concerning physical attraction, rather than a result of the spell. > > Personally, I believe Mulciber is just caught up in that desire for control ? he is controlled so must control others to soothe his ego Carol responds: I don't thinks so. Harry doesn't notice any similar sensation when he uses Draco's wand for any other spell. I'm pretty sure that "the sense of heady control" relates to the Imperius curse itself. He's feeling a connection between his own brain, the new wand, and what he wants the Imperiused person to do. (we're told in Go F how it feels to be on the receiving end of this spell; here we're told how it feels to be the caster.) and Harry also remembers Bellatrix's words: "You have to mean them" (the Unforgiveable Curses). I do agree that Mulciber enjoyed controlling people, much as Bellatrix enjoyed torturing them, but I think that the spell itself would be addictive to a person like him. Carol, not arguing with you, just not convinced that my reading is incorrect. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 03:15:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 03:15:19 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182464 > Betsy Hp: > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. Something that most everyone goes through at one point or another, and something pretty standard in coming of age tales. Or really, any story where the protagonist changes. In the Disney movie, "Beauty and the Beast" the motherly teapot sings of their love beginning when they both have a "learning you were wrong" moment. I'd been hoping for Harry to have such a moment. He didn't. > > But I think that if JKR was writing a story that warned against being independent it makes sense that the boy chosen to be the hero was heroic from the get go. After all, he's the guy chosen from the voice on high. You don't want that guy to be wrong about anything since he's the only one able to save the day. Carol responds: I think Harry does realize that he was wrong about a lot of people, or, at any rate, he changes his view of them (Luna, Neville, Kreacher, Regulus, Draco, Snape), but it doesn't come to him as an epiphany--it's a more gradual change in perspective. In the case of snape, probably the most important of these changed perspectives, it's so gradual, and so mixed with his realization that he has to sacrifice himself and of Dumbledore's "betrayal," that he isn't consciously aware of it--and, yet, his very public vindication of Snape shows that it has, indeed, happened. And, of course, much of DH is about coming to understand dumbledore and finding the truth about him, which is somewhere between the glowing tribute of Elphias Doge and the snide insinuations of Rita Skeeter, who always puts the worst possible spin on everything. As for Harry's never being wrong, I really don't see how you can say that. He was wrong about Snape from the first book, and even after he finds out that Snape saved his life and was trying to stop Quirrell, he's still wrong about Snape, with the wrongness compounded in every book and coming to a head with the "murder" of DDD, for which Harry wants revenge clear up to "the Prince's Tale." We don't know at exactly which point he starts to understand and empathize with Snape, but it has clearly happened by the end of the chapter, when the narrator states that Snape might have just left the room. Not once does the narrator refer to "the hated voice" or "the man he hated" once Harry has entered those memories. Harry is also wrong about Sirius Black (understandably since everyone else is, too) and about Fake!Moody. He's wrong in blaming Snape for Sirius Black's death. He's wrong in thinking that he will be thwarted by Draco and his cronise in the RoR: Draco is trying to stop Crabbe from harming either him or "that diadem thing" and I, for one, don't think it's because he wants to turn Harry over to LV. His words are too similar to Snape's when Snape is protecting Harry from the DEs for me to accept that reading. Now, granted, Harry is right (for a change) that Draco has become a DE (I think he does have the Dark Mark) and that he's doing something dangerous for Voldemort, but he's wrong that Snape is helping him do it. He thinks that DD is (or was, as of DH) wrong to trust Snape. Harry is not, I agree, particularly brilliant, though he does generally think clearly in a crisis and he does figure things out eventually. He's a member of a team; he can't do it all by himself. (Hermione's contributions are clearest, but it's Ron who retrieves the Sword of Gryffindor ("*Are*--*you*--*mental*?") and destroys the locket Horcrux and opens the CoS and suggests that they accept Neville's help and Disarms both Wormtail and Bellatrix. Carol, cutting the post short because of a phone call From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 8 04:29:10 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 04:29:10 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182465 I'm really sorry to re-post, but the typos just made it impossible to understand. Sometimes I type words that sound like the word I want, but are not related so make no sense. > > Magpie: > > There's no indication this idea is stopping anybody from doing > > anything. Nobody is afraid that the rain in the office is going to > > get anyone killed that we see. It's handled pretty much the way the > > pranks against Umbridge are. > > Pippin: > The Twins tell Harry in OOP that they always consider what kind of > retaliation they are going to face. They had been careful up to that > point not to do anything that would get them expelled. I don't see why > Rowling should have to write OOP over again -- that's the in depth > look at what living under an oppressive government is like. We see > enough in DH to suggest that the same kinds of things are happening, > only on a larger scale. Magpie: No, I don't think we see anything in DH that suggests the same things are happening on a larger scale (outside Hogwarts). They are happening on a smaller scale. If we're to take the Twins' reasoning as an explanation, this is because everyone considered the kind of retaliation they were going to face and were careful not to do anything that would get get Voldemort to angry. Pippin: > We see Voldemort engage in massive retaliation against his own DE's > for the theft of the cup, and he threatens it against Hogwarts:"Anyone > who continues to resist, man, woman or child,will be slaughtered as > will every member of their family." We're also told that Voldemort's > wrath over the destruction of the diary was terrible to behold, and > that he set Draco at Dumbledore as a way to punish Lucius. Magpie: Yes, I see what he does to his own DEs. They're the ones who are displeasing him, the one's actually dealing with him. (And the way he knocks them down is yet another vulnerable point never exploited, one that I actually expected to be pre-DH when I thought there would be a wider war story.) I don't see that as some reason why everybody else is making sure not to put a toe too far out of line. Voldemort's people are killing people and putting them in jail for various other reasons. > Pippin: > You're saying it would be *harder* for Harry to give himself up to > someone who was right? Because otherwise I don't see why we should care. Magpie: Yeah, I'm saying that martyring yourself heroically to save others similar to the way Jesus did would be far less humbling because it requires none of the reassessment of himself than the storyline Betsy had talked about pre-DH and post-DH. JKR may agree and may not have enjoyed writing that as much either for all I know. I know which one your average Mary Sue author would prefer, for instance. If you're playing the part of Jesus, that's a step up. Carol: I know that you're arguing against certain points that Pippin made here, so please forgive me for ignoring those points and focusing only on the "rain" in Yaxley's office. Admittedly, such pranks are not on the scale of resistance that you're looking for, but they *are* resistance of the same sort that the weasley Twins and Lee Jordan practiced against the Umbridge regime at Hogwarts. Magpie: Yes, I agree. Making it rain in somebody's office is, imo, similar to kids sticking whatever those things were in Umbridge's office etc. Or like a lot of the Muggle-baiting things we've seen. -m From moosiemlo at gmail.com Tue Apr 8 16:16:59 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:16:59 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0804080916v8f676aw35ab7241d14909ee@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182466 Betsy Hp: Right. Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been beaten before Harry was born. Or before he was even a twinkle, for that matter. Lynda: Ok. So some person gets an idea for a story. It involves a villain that could have been stopped early on if someone had spoken up about his/her tendencies, but no one did because after all people can change--that someone who should have spoken up knows that personally having headed down the wrong path until a personal tragedy pointed him/her back on a lifepath that kept him/her from hurting others any longer. It also involves a prophecy that after a certain period of time a kid will be born that will have not only the ability but also the destiny to stop this villain. In constructing the story, there should have been several powerful, creative and inventive people who could have stepped in and stopped the bad guy before he/she became powerful, but if the writer lets that happen there's no story. This writer wants to write the story outlined above, so goes ahead and does so. There are a lot of stories written that if the writer had followed the line of reasoning that bad guy A should have been stopped by good guy 1 before becoming so powerful would never have been written. There have also been, most unfortunately, many real life incidents where if people had paid attention bad people would have been stopped before they were. So the argument that Voldie should have been stopped before Harry was even born is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 19:14:57 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 19:14:57 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 1 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182467 Alla wrote: > > Okay, I am guessing I will find a lot of new things, since I only reread this book once or twice all together. > I think this chapter sets up Harry's mood of being left out of the information loop brilliantly and that's on top of him still reliving Graveyard. > "We can't say much anything about you-know-what, obviously..." We've been told not to say anything important in case letters go astray..." Carol responds: Any ideas as to what "you-know-what" refers to? Does Hermione mean the return of You-Know-Who or something else? Alla: > Although, interesting detail: > > "He was never going to see Ron and Hermione again - > > And their faces burst clearly into his mind as he fought for his breath - > > "EXPECTO PATRONUM" - p.18 > > Alla: > > At first I thought that the happy memory was that he would never see them again and then I realized that I simply misread. Carol: Interesting reaction. It's been so long since my first reading of OoP that I don't know whether I experienced the same confusion--not on a rereading, though. (I'm also rereading OoP.) This passage is yet another example of the unreliable narrator quickly corrected (very much like the passages describing the Cruciatus Curse or the duel with Voldemort in the graveyard where he's sure he's going to die). Obviously, Harry survives, and he does see HRH again quite soon. But I like his seeing just their faces qualifying as a happy memory that enables him to conjure a powerful Patronus. Solves the problem of trying to bring a more detailed memory to mind in the face of a Dementor or multiple Dementors. After awhile, it would just be automatic. But what *caused* their faces to burst into his mind in this instance? Sheer luck? Harry's anger in this chapter, though understandable, seems out of proportion to the cause (frustration over being seemingly ignored and unappreciated, lack of sleep because of nightmares about the graveyard). The usual shabby treatment by the Dursleys seems to result only in a desire to channel his anger into taunting Dudley, who's afraid to fight back because of Harry's wand. Of course, anyone who's ever smacked his or her head on a casement window knows that the pain is intense and unlikely to improve an angry mood, but it does seem as if the soul bit is at work here, responding to and intensifying Harry's anger and resentment and self-pity (look what I've gone through that they haven't). Possibly it forewhadows the effects of the locket Horcrux on Ron. (?) What I noticed in a reading of this chapter is the still unanswered question of what caused the surge of electricity to go through harry when Uncle Vernon was throttling him (BTW, is Vernon's behavior where Harry learned to throttle people, as he does with Sirius Black in PoA and Mundungus in HBP?): "Then, as the pain in Harry's head gave a particularly nasty throb, Uncle Vernon yelped and released Harry as though he had received an electric shock--some invisible force seemed to have surged through his nephew, making him impossible to hold" (OoP Am. ed. 5). Is this Dumbledore's magical protection preventing injury to Harry at 4 Privet Drive, or does that apply only to LV and his minions? (It seems to apply to Dementors, even those sent by Umbridge, which don't attack him there.) Is it accidental magic of the sort that occurs when Harry is angry (and later causes sparks to come out of his wand, similar to Snape's anger in the Shrieking Shack in PoA)? Or does it have something to do with the soul bit? (Harry feels a particularly intense surge of pain in his head, which has just been banged against the open window, but it could be an unrecognized surge of anger from Voldemort picked up by the soul bit.) It's also interesting, given Harry's altered view of Snape in DH, that it doesn't even require a change in his perspective regarding Dudley for his desire to take revenge on Dudley, jinxing him "so thoroughly he'd have to crawl home like an insect, struck dumb. sprouting feelers" (15) to a desire to protect him ("DUDLEY, COME BACK! YOU'RE RUNNING RIGHT AT IT!" (17). Of course, in between the two speeches, he realizes that Dementors have arrived in Little Whinging and tells Dudley to shut up, but even though Dudley (who thinks that Harry is causing the darkness) has hit him in the head, his instinct is to protect his Muggle cousin, whom he knows to be completely helpless. Harry tells him to keep his mouth closed, whatever he does, and Dudley, no doubt remembering the Ton-Tongue toffee, obeys, clamping his arms tightly over his mouth. Like the moment of understanding between Harry and Petunia in the next chapter, Harry and Dudley are interacting here in an unusual way, one giving desperate advice and the other heeding it--even though Dudley, later, still thinks that Harry cast the spell that caused the cold, the darkness, and the despair. Carol, who loves the last line of this chapter, which beautifully sets up Mrs. Figg as Squib and Order member in "A Peck of Owls" From mom2skynoahnmady at yahoo.com Tue Apr 8 21:08:56 2008 From: mom2skynoahnmady at yahoo.com (allison wenzl) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 14:08:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape's potions book (was Re: Who needs Harry?) Message-ID: <837987.29141.qm@web45114.mail.sp1.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182468 Phil: Advanced Potion-Making by Libatius Borage, was last seen before the Fiendfyre in the Room of Requirement. It can be retrieved in several ways: 2. use a time turner to go back before the book was burnt. allison I guess I thought that all of the time turners were destroyed...at the Ministry. Unless one happened to possess one on their own. Phil: 4. Use repairo to return the burnt book to its earlier condition. allison according to Hermione, the book could not be repaired in this way. Fiendfyre was one of those ways to destroy something beyond magical repair. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 01:46:32 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:46:32 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: <2795713f0804080916v8f676aw35ab7241d14909ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182469 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Right. Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been > > beaten before Harry was born. Or before he was even a twinkle, for > > that matter. > > > >>Lynda: > Ok. So some person gets an idea for a story. > > In constructing the story, there should have been several powerful, > creative and inventive people who could have stepped in and stopped > the bad guy before he/she became powerful, but if the writer lets > that happen there's no story. This writer wants to write the story > outlined above, so goes ahead and does so. Betsy Hp: What I'd want is for the author to not just merely hand-wave away the "should have been". The writer is trying to draw me into her world, to make me believe it. So put some effort into it. Come up with a reason for Voldemort to have driven the WW to its knees. Make him so powerful/crafty/charming/whatever that a handful of creative and inventive people *couldn't* stop him. Then set him loose upon your world. > >>Lynda: > There are a lot of stories written that if the writer had followed > the line of reasoning that bad guy A should have been stopped by > good guy 1 before becoming so powerful would never have been > written. Betsy Hp: Well, yes. But good writers think up a reason for good guy 1 failing. JKR doesn't, IMO. > >>Lynda: > There have also been, most unfortunately, many real life incidents > where if people had paid attention bad people would have been > stopped before they were. Betsy Hp: Yes, and that would have been an excellent foundation for Voldemort's unstoppability. Only... people paid attention in JKR's world. I mean, she's the one shooting her own self in the foot here. It would have been quite easy to make the WW look at Voldemort as someone wonderful or someone to ignore and Dumbledore as a crank. But that's not how she wrote Voldemort's rise. He's pretty much terroizing from the get go and Dumbledore is considered wonderful and powerful and the last hope by everyone around him. And that's *before* Harry was born. > >>Lynda: > So the argument that Voldie should have been stopped before Harry > was even born is a moot point as far as I'm concerned. Betsy Hp: I think if you're happy with the story, yes it's certainly moot. But since I'm very much not, these are the kinds of questions I ask. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when > > you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. > > > >>Carol responds: > I think Harry does realize that he was wrong about a lot of people, > or, at any rate, he changes his view of them (Luna, Neville, > Kreacher, Regulus, Draco, Snape), but it doesn't come to him as an > epiphany--it's a more gradual change in perspective. > Betsy Hp: I meant more, Harry realizing that he was the ass in this scenario. Pretty much everyone you mention bows down at Harry's feet (sometimes literally, as in the case of Kreacher). Or they're dead. Or they're evil and finally realize it. But Harry himself doesn't have to recognize that someone else was right where he was wrong. Harry never has to rethink the way he comes at things. > >>Carol: > And, of course, much of DH is about coming to understand dumbledore > and finding the truth about him... Betsy Hp: Blech. Don't I know it. Most. Boring. Story. EVER!! And it boiled down to, "Yes Harry, Dumbledore *does* love you best." Which again, yawn. And also, gag. And furthermore, it doesn't work as a "learning he was wrong moment" for me since it was just Harry wibbling about whether or not Dumbledore loved him. Or deserved to. Which, as it turned out, Dumbledore did. Hurrah. As to Snape... Oh, Snape, I remember when you were cool, alas. So much promise, down the drain. Now you're dead and a nasty little toe- rag of a child has named his stupid, whiny off-spring after you. For a middle name of a middle child anyway. Well, that's what comes from losing your head over a stuck up, snot of a girl. You end up chained to an egocentric madman, forced to guard a child most unworthy. Really, death was the kindest course. At least you avoided the sanctimonious ever-after. I mean, look at the poor Malfoys. Do they look happy? Of course they don't. Who would? Doomed to life of dependency on the kindness of Gryffindors. ::shudder:: Betsy Hp (had a bit of fun in that last paragraph...don't take it too seriously as it was written with giggles) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 02:28:11 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:28:11 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182470 "I heard -- that awful boy -- telling her about them - years ago," she said jerkily. - p.32. Alla: So who was absolutely positively sure that it was Snape? I certainly entertained the possibility as very valid, but was willing to consider other candidates. As I mentioned before, I was pretty sure by DH that Snape/Lily are coming. I mean, I cannot say that I figured out as early as some people on list did and I also cannot say that I was hundred percent sure, but to me Snape talking obsenities (IMO) about James and being silent on the subject of Lily was HUGE sign. But since I hated the idea I was hoping for something else. Oh well, at least it was not a surprise for me. "Aunt Petunia uttered a soft scream. "His soul? They didn't take - he's still got his---" - p.34 Alla: Hmmm, Petunia certainly seems to believe in souls existance. Interesting. "The arrival of the dementors in Little Whinging seemed to have caused a breach in the great, invisible wall that divided the relentlessly non-magical world of Privet Drive and the word beyond. Harry's two lives had somehow become fused and everything had been turned upside down: The Dursleys were asking for details about the magical world and Mrs. Figg knew Albus Dumbledore; dementors were soaring around Little Whinging and he might never go back to Hogwarts. Harry's head throbbed more painfully" - p.37 Alla: I find this quote to be so interesting. I remember wondering whether Muggle and WW world would ever meet each other on the larger scale than some people going back and forth (parents, muggleborns) and this one seemed like foreshadowing that it may be. Till JKR said that it is not going to happen that is and then I was thinking that maybe it is a warning against the chaos that may happen if it will happen. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 04:34:36 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 04:34:36 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182471 > Betsy Hp: > What I'd want is for the author to not just merely hand-wave away > the "should have been". The writer is trying to draw me into her > world, to make me believe it. So put some effort into it. Come up > with a reason for Voldemort to have driven the WW to its knees. > Make him so powerful/crafty/charming/whatever that a handful of > creative and inventive people *couldn't* stop him. > > Then set him loose upon your world. Mike: I feel your pain, Betsy. (sorry, couldn't resist) But I do think JKR tried to paint Voldemort as a very powerful and demonic figure. What with all that "you-know-who" BS, we were supposed to believe that everyone except Dumbledore was scared of him, and even Dumbledore admits that Tom knows more vile, evil magic than he does. Hell, look at the very last scene before the Harry duel. Even with Harry's martyred love protection, LV blasts McG, Sluggy and Kingsley off their collective feets and sends them writhing through the air. So she tried, she really did. But, she failed and she failed in DH specifically because we got to see sooo much more of him than we got in the other six books combined. I stopped being scared of him (and I mean as a reader putting myself in Harry's shoes) when I heard all the idiotic notions that seeped out of his mouth. The Nagini-in-Bathilda was some scary and creepy magic, but there wasn't enough of that compared to what had become the mundane magic of a megalomaniac (say that 6 times fast). > Betsy Hp: > Well, yes. But good writers think up a reason for good guy 1 > failing. JKR doesn't, IMO. Mike: Here, I'm going to disagree with you ever so slightly. If Good Guy 1 is DD, the reason DD couldn't stop him was acceptable imo. DD was painted as the consumate "give em a second chance" guy. And when Tom was on his second chance - at Hogwarts - he charmed the pants off of every other teacher except DD. He was also never caught openly committing anything. He tied DD's own hands with his second chance. Combine that with DD's idiotic penchant for secrecy - which was nontheless sold extremely well throughout the series - and you have a reasonable excuse for why Good Guy 1 failed to stop Bad Guy A early on, imo. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, and that would have been an excellent foundation for > Voldemort's unstoppability. Mike: I'm hijacking your line of reasoning to tie back into stuff that was brought up a few days back re the Idiots of War, by Steve. First off, I'm in agreement with Alla, I wanted to see more resistance by the rest of the WW. I found their lack of same to be infuriating. And I also agree with Magpie, that it wasn't the limited omniscient narrator that kept us from seeing these French Resistance type actions. We didn't see them because they weren't there in any sufficient degree to make them worth noting. Steve's argument that they were out there was countered by his own argument that there were no front lines, there wasn't any standing or occupational army to fight. Just a few scattered DEs, here and there Imperiusing people to do their bidding. The good guys, not being sure who to fight or how to fight them, left them impotent. So, yeah Pippin, they did what they felt they could, and yeah Lois, enough little harassments can add up, eventually. But Arthur Weasley, to me, is the embodiment of the whole WW problem with fighting a tyrant like Voldemort. Back in GoF, Arthur oozed fear of anything Voldemort in explaining the way it was in VW1. And Arthur, though typical of your average wizard, wasn't a resistance fighter nor a soldier. He fell asleep on guard duty and it almost cost him his life. That's the kind of mentality that permeates the WW, with a few exceptions like Moody and Kingsley. They aren't equipped with the mentality to fight the good fight, nor the soldiering acumen to know what's important. Why aren't they equipped? Because they are intellectually lazy. They have magic, they don't need to work hard at anything. With a flick of their wands and a few correct phrases, they can get most anything done in a fraction of the time and with a fraction of the effort that their Muggle counterparts would have to spend. So when a Dark Lord emerges, one that has more magical abilities and knowledge than them, they are at a loss for what to do about him. Fudge said it best in HBP Ch. 1, "the other side can do magic too". And do it better than you can, eh Fudge? I'm convinced that if Snape hadn't loved Lily, the evil side would have won this war in VW1. Snape was one of the few intellectuals that could have swayed the balance of power into Voldemort's camp. Then again, a living James, Sirius and Lily all putting in an earnest effort, may have countered Snape's serious mind. They at least seemed to have the fortitude to stand up to Voldemort. > Betsy Hp: > It would have been quite easy to make the WW look at Voldemort > as someone wonderful or someone to ignore and Dumbledore as a > crank. But that's not how she wrote Voldemort's rise. He's pretty > much terrorizing from the get go Mike: Depends upon your reading, Betsy. I thought that Voldemort was portrayed as a charmer in his Hogwarts years. I also perceived him as a charmer in the early years after his return from his self imposed exile. I thought that whatever indiscretions that occured early on were not being traced back to him, just like his time at Hogwarts. Hindsight is 20/20 and many probably figured that Voldemort was behind the strange disappearances after he openly declared his hostility towards the Ministry and the rest of the WW in general. But at the time it was happening, he seemed to have covered his tracks pretty well. YMMV > Betsy Hp: > I meant more, Harry realizing that he was the ass in this > scenario. > But Harry himself doesn't have to recognize that someone else > was right where he was wrong. Harry never has to rethink the > way he comes at things. Mike: OK, so this is not a case where Harry has to recognize someone he hated was right and he was wrong. But in rushing off to the Ministry in OotP, Harry overrode Hermione's more reasoned thinking and was dead wrong. And he paid the ultimate price for it, the life of his Godfather. This hurts Harry clear to the bone, much worse than any humiliation could possibly have. And he becomes more circumspect for it. All through HBP he's convinced Draco is up to something. But this time he tries to get some evidence. Yeah, he bleats out whenever he gets near someone's ear, but they never listen to him because he has no evidence. I know that's not exactly what you're looking for Betsy, but it's the best I can do. Mostly because I agree with you regarding the lack of Bilding in this Bildingsroman. (thanks Carol, I can even spell it now) Luckily, my enjoyment of the series didn't hinge upon Harry's development in the intellectual or moral categories. I wanted magic, and I got some pretty cool, if sometimes gruesome magic in DH. Simple things for simple minds, doncha know. ;-) > Betsy Hp: > > As to Snape... Oh, Snape, I remember when you were cool, alas. So > much promise, down the drain. Now you're dead and a nasty little > toe-rag of a child has named his stupid, whiny off-spring after > you. For a middle name of a middle child anyway. Well, that's > what comes from losing your head over a stuck up, snot of a girl. > You end up chained to an egocentric madman, forced to guard a > child most unworthy. Really, death was the kindest course. At > least you avoided the sanctimonious ever-after. I mean, look at > the poor Malfoys. Do they look happy? Of course they don't. Who > would? Doomed to life of dependency on the kindness of > Gryffindors. ::shudder:: Mike: HA! You mean Snape the wimp-boy, can't even convince a broom to let him ride it, gets hauled up by his ankles to show the world his dirty underpants? This guy that picks on kids a third of his age, but cowers in front of Mad-Eye (not even the real Mad-Eye mind you) like he's still a school boy and runs off to Filch when he gets a little scratch on his leg. "Potter, you lost me my medal. And after all my hard work conjuring stretchers. Nevermind that I was going to take credit for capturing the *dangerous* criminal, Sirius Black, even though I let three third- year kids knock me out and spent the rest of the time unconscious." "Oh, don't hurt me Dumbledore." Yep, that's the Snape I remember. I don't know about kinder course, but yeah, death was too good for Snivellus. He shoulda had to spend the rest of his life re-potting Mandrakes for Neville. He coulda had Draco helping him. And every once in a while, Draco blurts out, "My mom always hated you. She played you like a fiddle in a country band." Mike, who also expects a little backlash from the Snape-o-philes, but had too much fun to care From moosiemlo at gmail.com Wed Apr 9 04:43:24 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2008 21:43:24 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: References: <2795713f0804080916v8f676aw35ab7241d14909ee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2795713f0804082143r10da70b1jf676172f92c4af5f@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182472 Betsy Hp: What I'd want is for the author to not just merely hand-wave away the "should have been". The writer is trying to draw me into her world, to make me believe it. So put some effort into it. Come up with a reason for Voldemort to have driven the WW to its knees. Make him so powerful/crafty/charming/whatever that a handful of creative and inventive people *couldn't* stop him. Then set him loose upon your world. Lynda: I went into the series knowing that the story was about a boy named Harry Potter who was the "hero" of the series. I knew that in the story Harry Potter was probably going to be the one who needed to come out of the story victorious for lack of a better word. To create a story, JKR needed certain elements. A villain=Voldemort, a hero=Harry. Support teams for both sides. The Death Eaters for Voldie and the Order of the Phoenix for Harry. Both sides have other supporters as well. Lesser known or less powerful characters who support the hero or the villain. And then there are the others. The people who are just kind of hanging around, waiting to know what to do. Rowling established in SS that Voldemort was a powerful wizard that had brought the WW to its knees, that the only one who had survived his killing curse was Harry. That for whatever reason, wits, sheer charisma, or just plain destiny, no one had yet been able to stop Voldemort. The overwhelming hint (anvil) that Harry was the one to do that is implicit. Now, could Rowling have done some things differently and better? Yes, I think so. She is not my favorite writer, nor the best I've ever read. But I still think she did a good job with the story she told. SS was, after all her first published story and I did find that her writing improved throughout the series, as happens with every decent new writer I read. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Apr 9 12:16:22 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 12:16:22 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182473 >Alla quoted: > "I heard -- that awful boy -- telling her about them - years ago," > she said jerkily. - p.32. > > Alla: > > So who was absolutely positively sure that it was Snape? > > I certainly entertained the possibility as very valid, but was ?? willing to consider other candidates. Potioncat: Me! Me! At least, after the first reading, maybe the second or third. It was so obvious that the awful boy was James, and Harry thought so, that it had to be someone else. My mind was open (heck, my mind is a sieve) to Sirius but I was 99% sure it was Severus. Just before DH came out, I figured out that Lily, Petunia and Severus knew each other as children---that the Evans lived near Spinner's End. My great regret in life is that I never wrote the post explaining it before DH came out. Look at the quote. Isn't it great! Petunia's speaking jerkily, and we can see the gaps. Before DH, the reader/Harry can chalk it up to emotion. But now it looks as if she's almost saying "I heard Sev telling her about them when we were kids." And at each point, Petunia catches herself and changes the words. > Alla: > As I mentioned before, I was pretty sure by DH that Snape/Lily are > coming. I mean, I cannot say that I figured out as early as some > people on list did and I also cannot say that I was hundred percent > sure, but to me Snape talking obsenities (IMO) about James and being > silent on the subject of Lily was HUGE sign. But since I hated the > idea I was hoping for something else. Potioncat: There's an interview over at Leaky Cauldron that address among other things, Snape and Lily. This quote is very funny, and fits with what you're saying, Alla. http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/3/jkr-snape-and-dumbledore- two-of-the-most-important-characters-in-deathly-hallows "But then you have people, I had people as early as Prisoner of Azkaban, the third book. I remember a woman saying to me : ??I think Snape loves Lily??. I was ??Oh my God what the hell did I give away ???. " Potioncat: It's no wonder she seemed to have such a hard time with questions about Snape's redemption and love. She knew some people were very close already. But you know it really wasn't Snape in love with Lily. It was more there had been friendship and later there was something of a vow or promise. But I can't see that he was in love with her the remaining two years at Hogwarts and the few years afterwards. Even with the silver doe in DD's office, I don't get a feel of romantic love, but more of devotion. > Alla: > Hmmm, Petunia certainly seems to believe in souls existance. ?? Interesting. Potioncat: I think that's a fairly standard belief in an English-based culture. Maybe I'm looking at it from an American viewpoint, but even those who do not participate in organized religion seem to have the belief of souls. > > snipping quote > Alla: > > I find this quote to be so interesting. I remember wondering whether > Muggle and WW world would ever meet each other on the larger scale > than some people going back and forth (parents, muggleborns) and this > one seemed like foreshadowing that it may be. > > Till JKR said that it is not going to happen that is and then I was > thinking that maybe it is a warning against the chaos that may happen ?? if it will happen. Potioncat: I think it's a modern thing. Our literature is rich with magical and non-magical interactions, but that comes from a time when people did believe in witches. Now that we have science, it's harder to put a witch in the story. (Not impossible.) Or more difficult to have non- magical people visiting witches. So when we do see them, the other characters don't know about the magic. So JKR keeps her Muggle society separate from her Wizarding one. Many of our older stories have characters going to witches for magical help or for fortune-telling. But the non-magicals had to be careful. Witches took offense easily and might hex you over a small slight. So JKR continued that character-trait with her wizarding culture. Many on this list see the Wizarding World as an unfriendly place, but it is in keeping with what our (Muggle) culture has always said about magical folk. Thanks again, Alla, for this thread! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 9 15:24:39 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:24:39 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182474 > > Betsy Hp: > Right. Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been > beaten before Harry was born. Or before he was even a twinkle, for > that matter. > > What it comes down to, for me, is that when we finally see Voldemort > in all his terrifying glory... he just ain't all that. Looking at > his antics during DH, looking at the people he surrounded himself > with, looking at how he *treated* those he surrounded himself with, > it makes no sense to me that Voldemort was able to terrorize the WW > so completely. Pippin: I agree, Voldemort should have been stopped when he was a real baby, not a stunted imitation of one. But that would have taken a world that pays far more attention to the fate of its children than the WW -- or ours. But the people around Voldemort aren't seeing him as we do. They don't have a V-chip in their heads; they can't tell what he's thinking, they can't see the pathetic little babymind he really is. But he can see into their heads, oh yes, every treasonous thought, and he doesn't have to be looking into their eyes to do it. There's no sneaking up on him, nobody knows what spell could kill him, and hardly anyone gets a chance at a second shot. To most of the WW, Voldemort remains remote and terrifying. As for his servants, if they're not sincerely terrified, they're dead. The WW also didn't have a lot of civil rights in the first place. There's no free press, no right to counsel, due process is more honored in the breach than the observance, and croneyism is the rule rather than the exception, as is discrimination against minorities. They've always kept wands out of the hands of House elves and goblins, why not Muggleborns too? The leaders who would protest such a change have largely been silenced by the time the ministry falls. We keep invoking grass roots resistance movements as if everyone should know such things are possible. But do they? The only revolts the Trio learn about in school are goblin rebellions that failed. AFAWK, the WW has no tradition of successful uprisings against the Ministry or gallant resistance movements (the Order's work was secret) or citizen militias. Hagrid is slapped down when he says he'd have gone after Black himself. Fudge speaks of Peter Pettigrew as a hero but a very foolish man -- only "trained hit wizards" would have a chance against someone like Black. And to give Fudge his due, we've seen the DE's defeat the Order more than once. They were winning at the Ministry until Dumbledore showed up, they outfought the Order and gained their objective on the tower, and they'd have won the battle of Hogwarts if it weren't for Harry. The Ministry pamphlets speak of how to recognize DE's and inferi, but not of practicing defensive spells, IRRC. DADA's been a joke for years. The citizens of the WW may be armed, but they haven't been taught to be dangerous. In any case, it's perfectly legitimate for an author to be more interested in why people fail against tyranny than in how they succeed. Betsy Hp: > And then once we finally *do* get to Harry, I don't see what Harry > did that no one else could do. What was so *special* about this > kid. Harry wasn't particularly compassionate. > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when you > realize your preconceived notions are wrong. Pippin: Why should that be horrible? So, you're not the wise and wonderful wizard everyone thinks. Pass the handkie. You failed to predict the consequences of your actions -- no O in divination for you! Of course, if you were independent, then you'd have to blame yourself if your world wasn't as lovely as you'd like it to be. And Harry did feel that way in OOP. He couldn't stand to blame himself or the people he loved for Sirius's death, so he chose to blame Snape instead. But if everyone is deeply interdependent, then you never have to feel uniquely to blame--you can focus on trying to heal the world without obsessing over who is at fault for it. Pippin From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Wed Apr 9 15:26:27 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:26:27 -0000 Subject: James's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182475 Hi I am delurking to ask a question that I have wondered about for a while. We Know that Sirius went to stay with James at his parents house, but we never find out what happened to James's parents. Were they alive when Harry was born ? Were they alive whan James and Lily died/ If so why did they not make contact with Harry or take him in to bring up? Any theories anyone Jayne From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 15:54:24 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:54:24 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 1 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182476 --- "Carol" wrote: > > Alla wrote: > > > > Okay, I am guessing I will find a lot of new things, since > > I only reread this book once or twice all together. > > > I think this chapter sets up Harry's mood of being left out > > of the information loop brilliantly and that's on top of >> him still reliving Graveyard. > > > > ... > > > Carol: > ... > > Harry's anger in this chapter, though understandable, seems > out of proportion to the cause .... bboyminn: One teeny tiny side point regarding this. It may be that Harry's emotions seem out of proportion because we learn about them in narrative. Since it is narrative, we are seeing Harry's /internal/ emotional landscape, not the outward appearances. I'm sure we can all relate to having some kind of strong emotional turmoil, that, for the most part, shows very little on the outside. I doubt that the Dursleys, or any other external observer, perceived the same level of turmoil that we the reader perceive. Also, keep in mind that Harry has recently experienced a near- death physical and emotional trauma. While I may not go so far as to say he is suffering from 'Post traumatic Stress Disorder', he is undoubtedly suffering from post traumatic stress. Having been nearly killed and having had to fight for his life is most certainly amplifying his mood. > Carol: > > ... but it does seem as if the soul bit is at work here, > responding to and intensifying Harry's anger and resentment > and self-pity (look what I've gone through that they haven't). > Possibly it forewhadows the effects of the locket Horcrux on > Ron. (?) > bboyminn: This part I can't be sure about. I would like to say 'no' the Horcrux isn't coming into play, but there seems to be too much evidence against it. Yet, at the same time, not enough evidence to confirm it. Consider, what we now know from DH about how the Horcrux reacts, then consider that just a few weeks before the Horcrux was within inches of its master, I can see how the Horcrux itself might have experienced a little 'stress' of its own, and how that stress might still be affecting it. Still, I instinctively feel that any stress it was adding to Harry was minor > Carol: > > What I noticed in a reading of this chapter is the still > unanswered question of what caused the surge of electricity > to go through harry when Uncle Vernon was throttling him .... > > bboyminn: While a part of me wonders if it wasn't the protection aroudnd the Dursley home coming into play, I am far more convinced it was just a surge of spontaneous magic. Harry was already emotionally on edge, then the pain of bumping his head compounded that which was further compounded by the sureness with which Harry believe magical active had just occurred in his vicinity, then Vernon strangling him was the last straw that cause magic to burst out. Seems like exactly the type of situation in which this would occur. Excellent post as always from Carol, I'm not disputing any thing she said, just trying to broaden the perspective a bit. Steve/bboyminn From gloworm419 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 15:47:15 2008 From: gloworm419 at yahoo.com (Gloria R. Hernon) Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 08:47:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: James's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <57034.1493.qm@web50402.mail.re2.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182477 > Jayne wrote: > Hi, > I am delurking to ask a question that I have > wondered about for a while. We Know that Sirius > went to stay with James at his parents house, but > we never find out what happened to James's parents. > > Were they alive when Harry was born ? > Were they alive whan James and Lily died/ If so why > did they not make contact with Harry or take him > in to bring up? > > Any theories anyone Gloria says: I've been wondering the same thing Jayne. In the books JKR said James' parents were older; but the reader never found out what actually happened to them. Maybe it'll be in her encyclopedia, all the info she didn't to tell us in the last book. I hope so! IMO, I tend to believe they weren't alive when James & Lily died. They would definitely had been the right couple to leave Harry with, not the Dursely's. I would have LOVED to see the Potter household with teenage James & Sirius running amok. That would have been very funny I'm sure. Gloria From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 17:08:52 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:08:52 -0000 Subject: James's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182478 --- "Jayne" wrote: > > Hi > I am delurking to ask a question that I have wondered about > for a while. We Know that Sirius went to stay with James at > his parents house, but we never find out what happened to > James's parents. Were they alive when Harry was born ? > Were they alive whan James and Lily died/ If so why did they > not make contact with Harry or take him in to bring up? > > Any theories anyone > > Jayne > bboyminn: They, James parents, were certainly dead at the time James died, otherwise Harry would have been left with them and not the Dursleys; who, as stated many times, are Harry's only living relatives. JKR said that James parents were elderly, having had James late in life, and that they had succumb to a wizard's illness. Though logically, this had not happened yet when James was 16 because that is the age that Sirius left home and stayed with the Potter family. So, in James 7th year at Hogwarts, or immediately after James left Hogwarts, Mr and Mrs Potter must have died. Still, there are some unanswered questions. There seems to have been a sizable estate, as in, Harry's vault full of gold. But to have an estate that size, the Potters were either businessmen, or landed gentry or at least near that. So, what happened to the Potter's ancestral home and the accompanying land, or what happened to the Potter's business ventures? Expanding that further, was the home at Godric's Hollow, James and Lily's home, Mr and Mrs Potter's ancestral home, or simply a house on loan to them while they hid? I have no explanation from reliable sources, so here is how I explain it to myself. During the first Voldemort war, which seems to have lasted longer and grown more intense, many in the wizard world would have hedged their bets. Many would likely have been planning to move away until hostilities ceased. Consequently, the Potters had sold their house, land, and all business venture under the assumption that cash is easier to move around than material assets. So, by the time Harry comes along (in SS/PS) all the Potter assets have been converted to cash. That may or may not be right, but, for now, that's how I explain it to myself. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 17:20:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:20:02 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182479 Carol earlier: > > I think Harry does realize that he was wrong about a lot of people, or, at any rate, he changes his view of them (Luna, Neville, Kreacher, Regulus, Draco, Snape), but it doesn't come to him as an epiphany--it's a more gradual change in perspective. > > > > Betsy Hp: > I meant more, Harry realizing that he was the ass in this scenario. Pretty much everyone you mention bows down at Harry's feet (sometimes literally, as in the case of Kreacher). Or they're dead. Or they're evil and finally realize it. But Harry himself doesn't have to recognize that someone else was right where he was wrong. Harry never has to rethink the way he comes at things. Carol responds: I don't know of anyone who fits the "evil and finally realize it" scenario. Young Severus Snape realizes that he's made a terrible mistake and comes to Dumbledore for help. And once the mistake becomes irreversible (because a variety of other people have made mistakes or committed crimes) he spends the rest of his life atoning for it. He never, however, "bows down at Harry's feet" (the memories he provides help Harry to understand *him,* not vice versa, as well as provide the message that Harry has to sacrifice himself). And Kreacher comes to respect Harry because Harry understands Kreacher's devotion to Regulus and is helping Kreacher destroy the locket that Regulus wanted destroyed. He's not worshipping Harry as the savior of the WW as Dobby does (quite prematurely), and, as I read it, he's not referring to Harry at all but to Regulus when he rallies the House-Elves to "fight! fight! fight for my master, the champion of House-Elves." Regulus died to avenge a House-Elf. Harry merely learns to understand Kreacher's psychology. (Sure, Kreacher bows to him as his rightful master, but that's House-Elves for you. He rejected Harry and did his best to undermine him until Harry understood him.) Neville and Luna never "bow down" to Harry, either literally or figuratively. They want to help him fight the Carrows (and overthrow Snape, whom, of course, they misunderstand). Neville has become a leader in Harry's absence (more of a leader than Harry ever was, IMO, because he's not self-obsessed) and Luna, too, has shown courage, never losing her inborn optimism even in captivity. Neville doesn't question Harry when Harry tells him to "kill the snake": he knows that it has to be done and, for some reason, Harry can't do it. So he faces Voldemort, whom he thinks has killed Harry, without fear, even after he loses his wand, and proves his worthiness to receive the Sword of Gryffindor (need and peril and chivalry being the conditions required). Regulus, of course, doesn't bow down at Harry's feet. He dies before Harry is fifteen months old. And he doesn't view himself as evil, either (though it seems he realizes he's made a great mistake in following Voldemort, one he intends to remedy by making Voldemort mortal). In this instance, we see Harry's expectation (that Regulus would make Kreacher drink the potion as Voldemort did) completely overturned. Regulus, not Sirius, is right about House-Elves. Regulus, not Sirius, willingly sacrificed his life to weaken Voldemort. (Sirius dies protecting Harry, true, but it's his own overconfidence and rashness (or carelessness) that cause him to fight Bellatrix on the dais in the first place.) Regulus shows Harry that Slytherins (and even Death Eaters) can act on principle with incredible courage, a lesson that perhaps prepares him for a similar revelation regarding Snape. As for Harry himself admitting that he's wrong, that doesn't happen often because Harry doesn't engage in introspection very often. I did come across one example, though; he's jealous of Ron for being appointed Prefect and at first laughs at him behind his back but then has the grace to be ashamed of himself. He goes through his reasons for thinking that he, not Ron, should have been made Prefect and concludes that Ron must have something he doesn't have. (The moment is rather spoiled, for me, at least, when DD tearfully confesses that he didn't make Harry Prefect because he already had enough on his plate, so what Ron has that Harry doesn't turns out merely to be the time to deal with Prefect duties, but at least Harry, in this instance, is trying to think things out and accepts Ron's beating him at something. It's an important lesson for Harry, who has been dwelling on his own importance and his own suffering all summer. Of course, it's immediately pushed into near-irrelevance by the photo of the Order members, half of whom are already dead or as good as dead by that point, and by Mrs. Weasley's Boggart. Yes, Harry; the danger posed by LV and the DEs to the Order and the Weasley family and everyone you care about is more important than who's appointed Prefect, and you would have made as bad a Prefect as Ron, anyway. But my point is that, in this instance, at least, Harry does examine his own motives and emotions and find them wanting. Carol, understanding Betsy's disappointment in the books but not convinced by unsupported assertions involving "never" (which can be overturned by a single counterexample) From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 17:43:35 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 17:43:35 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182480 Alla quoted: > "The arrival of the dementors in Little Whinging seemed to have caused a breach in the great, invisible wall that divided the relentlessly non-magical world of Privet Drive and the word beyond. Harry's two lives had somehow become fused and everything had been turned upside down: The Dursleys were asking for details about the magical world and Mrs. Figg knew Albus Dumbledore; dementors were soaring around Little Whinging and he might never go back to Hogwarts. Harry's head throbbed more painfully" - p.37 > Alla commented: > > I find this quote to be so interesting. I remember wondering whether Muggle and WW world would ever meet each other on the larger scale than some people going back and forth (parents, muggleborns) and this one seemed like foreshadowing that it may be. > > Till JKR said that it is not going to happen that is and then I was thinking that maybe it is a warning against the chaos that may happen if it will happen. Carol responds: JKR has to maintain verisimilitude. We can believe (if we choose ) in a hidden WW within the Muggle world, dependent on Muggle-repelling spells and Memory Charms and the like for secrecy. We can even believe in a generic Muggle Prime Minister visited by Fudge (HBP) who's unwilling to reveal those visits to anyone and in Wizards (Kingsley Shacklebolt) and Squibs (Mrs. Figg) passing as Muggles. We can also believe in magically caused disasters (the bridge and the "hurricane") whose real cause is unsuspected by the Muggles and in an occasional murder or disappearance (the Riddle, Frank Bryce, Emmeline Vance, Amelia Bones) of which the Muggle authorities are aware but which they can't solve, but that's about as far as JKR can credibly go. She can't have LV taking over the WW and then extending his rule over the Muggle world because her story is set in the recent past (it ends, not counting the Epilogue) in 1998, and we Muggles know that no such takeover occurred. So the contacts between the Muggle world and the WW have to be restricted to things that can be otherwise explained (breeding Dementors as an unseasonable fog making everyone depressed, for example). *Harry's* worlds overlap, as do those of Muggle-born Witches and Wizards and their parents, but, for most of Muggles, including JKR's readers, magic is dismissed as irrational and unreal. We would walk right by St. Mungo's or the visitors' entrance to the MoM and not know that they were there. Carol, now wondering how the whole village of Hogsmeade is concealed from Muggle eyes From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 18:48:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:48:08 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182481 Alla quoted: > > "I heard -- that awful boy -- telling her about them - years ago," she said jerkily. - p.32. > > Alla: > > So who was absolutely positively sure that it was Snape? > > I certainly entertained the possibility as very valid, but was willing to consider other candidates. Carol responds: Ah, well. I should have known that Harry would get "the awful boy" wrong (he was right about "*her*" being Lily), but I was dead set against love for Lily being Snape's motive for protecting Harry and changing sides. And maybe (I'm not sure) I wanted someone besides me to consider *James* an "awful boy." I did, however, like the moment of understanding between Harry and Petunia, which seemed to show that Petunia did love her sister as well as resent her (and certainly confirmed what I suspected all along, that she knew more about the WW than Vernon did). "Remember my last!" suggested some sort of correspondence between her and Dumbledore that predated the letter tucked inside baby!Harry's blankets. (DD's "We have corresponded" in HBP reinforces the idea.) Too bad the "correspondence" was only Child!Petunia asking to be admitted to Hogwarts and DD gently letting her down. BTW, I forgot to mention in response to Alla's post on OoP chapter 1 that JKR has by this point (and possibly by GoF, which begins with a shift away from Harry's perspective) become much more skilled at incorporating backstory subtly: No more "Harry Potter was a very unusual boy" stuff, with a retelling of events in the previous book for those who haven't read it. Cedric's murder is brought in (very realistically) through nightmares. References to Dobby are slipped in in relation to the loud crack that later turns out to be Mundungus, who's been hiding under an Invisibility Cloak, Disapparating. Voldemort's return is dealt with through Harry's listening to the news, expecting to hear about unexplained deaths, disappearances, and "accidents"--exactly the kinds of things that occur at the beginning of HBP (so we get foreshadowing along with the backstory). Anyway, as an editor, I appreciated the absence of undisguised exposition of the type we get in the earlier books. Chapter two does the same kind of thing--even the retelling of the Dementor incident is so interrupted by typical Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia reactions (loved them flapping their hands to shut Harry up so that Dudley could tell them what happened, as if he, not Harry, knew what was going on!) And the arrival of each individual owl, except, perhaps, the one from Sirius, alters the structure of the scene (Harry's going to leave; Harry's going to stay; Uncle Vernon is kicking Harry out; Petunia says he has to stay)--very cleverly done, I thought. Also, Petunia, like Snape and Dumbledore, is pretty good at coming up with reasons that her listener (in this case, Vernon) will accept ("the neighbors will talk") but which aren't her real reason (she apparently knows about the protection that DD has placed on the house, which will end if Harry no longer calls 4 Privet Drive home). The slapstick comedy at the beginning of the chapter (Mrs. Figg hitting Mundungus with catfood cans) nicely balances out the drama of the Dementor attack (and reminds us that Arabella Figg and Mundungus Fletcher were mentioned as members of "the old crowd" near the end of GoF). We also understand why "batty," cat-loving Mrs. Figg has been inviting Harry to tea (chapter 1) and what the cat was doing under the car in the same chapter. Harry, as usual, hasn't put two and two together, but the reader can. And, of course, Mrs. Figg sending Mundungus to Dumbledore provides a reasonable explanation for DD's knowledge of the events and subsequent actions, as well as the flurry of owls--or, should I say, the "peck" of owls--arriving at the Dursleys' house and subtly recalling the owls of SS/PS. Carol, appreciating these two chapters from a structural perspective From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 9 21:01:40 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:01:40 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182482 Mike wrote: > ,snip> I do think JKR tried to paint Voldemort as a very powerful and demonic figure. What with all that "you-know-who" BS, we were supposed to believe that everyone except Dumbledore was scared of him, and even Dumbledore admits that Tom knows more vile, evil magic than he does. > But, she failed and she failed in DH specifically because we got to see sooo much more of him than we got in the other six books combined. I stopped being scared of him (and I mean as a reader putting myself in Harry's shoes) when I heard all the idiotic notions that seeped out of his mouth. The Nagini-in-Bathilda was some scary and creepy magic, but there wasn't enough of that compared to what had become the mundane magic of a megalomaniac (say that 6 times fast). Carol responds: I'd say that she does more than that, with LV's ability to possess people (SS/Ps and CoS), the magic that restores him first to fetal form and then to snake-faced human form (GoF), the Inferi and that horrible potion in HBP, his Legilimency (introduced in OoP and shown to be really invasive and horrible--all that it's cracked up to be and more--in DH--and, BTW, Snape's Occlumency is indeed "superb" to withstand it); all the original Order members killed off or disappearing (OoP); the duel with DD in OoP, which might have been a stand-off if it hadn't been for the arrival of the Aurors and would have resulted in disaster for Possessed!Harry had not his ability to love been unendurable. And, of course, Horcruxes are pretty horrible in themselves, and his early powers (telekinesis, control of animals, making people feel pain without a wand) indicate that he really is more than usually gifted, with the potential and the personality to become evil and dangerous (HBP). The flying without a broom in DH is interesting but not particularly dark; Snape can do it, too, but the control of Nagini ("Dinner, Nagini!") is pretty horrifying and sets us up for more confrontations with this most loathsome of Horcruxes. (Bathilda!Nagini is perhaps the most horrifying bit of Dark magic in the entire series.) I don't know about you, but I was also spellbound by Ron's confrontation with the locket Horcrux, which shows Tom Riddle's ability to read others' thoughts and psychologically manipulate them (the diary redux). What I don't see, though, is any spectacular magic (other than a cage for Nagini and Snape's death) being performed by the Elder Wand. Voldemort relies on his old stand-bys, AK and Crucio (which, perhaps, is part of the problem, as is the Elder Wand itself, which takes LV's attention away from the WW). Surely, he should become more formidable, not less, as we approach the end of the series. (He's mostly lethal to his own DEs and seems to have lost all self-control.) I don't think the problem is that we see so much of him in DH (I think for example, that seeing Godric's Hollow from his perspective worked nicely) as that, as you say, he's using mundane magic--the same old Unforgiveable Curses we've seen so much of already (and even Harry is now using two of them, which diminishes them considerably)--and he's sidetracked, as in OoP, from world (or at least British/Western European) domination by wands and Horcruxes. Like Sauron putting most of the power that was native to him into the One Ring, he's created the means for his own downfall. (Not that Sauron is anywhere near as stupid as LV at the end of Dh!) > Mike: > If Good Guy 1 is DD, the reason DD couldn't stop him was acceptable imo. DD was painted as the consumate "give em a second chance" guy. And when Tom was on his second chance - at Hogwarts - he charmed the pants off of every other teacher except DD. He was also never caught openly committing anything. He tied DD's own hands with his second chance. > > Combine that with DD's idiotic penchant for secrecy - which was nontheless sold extremely well throughout the series - and you have a reasonable excuse for why Good Guy 1 failed to stop Bad Guy A early> on, imo. Carol responds: DD never trusted Tom Riddle, so I don't think he was really giving him a second chance. I don't know whether it would have done any good to confide his suspicions (they weren't provable) to Horace Slughorn or Armando Dippett. As you say, Tom was never caught openly committing any acts of evil or mischief. DD couldn't open the CoS himself; all he could do was make sure that the boy who'd been framed for Myrtle's death, Rubeus Hagrid, had a place to stay and training as gamekeeper. After that, he kept an eye on Tom Riddle, suspected him of killing his father and grandparents, and again failed to prove that the person he'd framed for the murders, Morfin, was innocent because Morfin died before the matter could be investigated. Ditto for Hokey and the murder of Hepzibah smith. All DD could do was, literally, hold onto the memories he'd obtained from Morfin and Hokey and keep on collecting memories related to Tom Riddle's past and his crimes. I do agree that DD's penchant for secrecy contributed to the problem of getting anyone else to work with him or believe him, but I'm not so sure that it's idiotic. He had a traitor, Wormtail, leaking information in VW1. Hagrid, though DD would trust him with his life, could not keep a secret. Mundungus, too, is not particularly trustworthy. I can see why Dumbledore didn't want Harry to know everything before he was ready, and why he didn't want any of the kids (HRH, the Twins, Ginny) hearing Snape's reports to the Order of the Phoenix. (Unlike Alla, I'm on DD's side in that regard.) And I still think that even if he'd confided more fully in Snape, trusting both his loyalty and his Occlumency, he and Snape together couldn't have destroyed all the Horcruxes without Harry's help. the three of them would have made quite a team, but the last two books would have been very different. Mike: And I also agree with Magpie, that it wasn't the limited omniscient narrator that kept us from seeing these French Resistance type actions. We didn't see them because they weren't there in any sufficient degree to make them worth noting. Carol responds: I disagree. The limited omniscient narrator prevents us readers from knowing anything that Harry doesn't know. His sources of information are extremely limited once he leaves 12 GP. He's isolated from both the Muggle and Wizarding worlds, relying on an overheard conversation (Cresswell, Tonks, Dean and the Goblins) to provide him with partially inaccurate information about happenings at Hogwarts, supplemented by Phineas Nigellus's sly contributions and a single, not particularly informative, Pottercast (which does let him know that Fred, Lee Jordan, Lupin, and Shacklebolt are alive and trying to boost WW morale but also tells him that Cresswell, Ted Tonks, and the Goblin Gornuk are dead). HRH have no access to the Daily Prophet, which would have been useless, anyway, considering that it's all propaganda, and Xeno Lovegood has stopped informing the WW of what's really happening (as far as he knows) via the Quibbler once Luna is kidnapped. Other than that, Harry has the scar link, which tells him what Voldemort is up to; the incident with Xeno Lovegood, which informs him that Luna has been captured; Ron's report that Voldemort's name has been jinxed (which Harry brilliantly ignores); and encounters with Snatchers and Death Eaters, which, ironically, enable him to guess the whereabouts of the cup Horcrux (and see firsthand how unhappy Draco is as a DE). No one he encounters--Dean, who's been on the run, or Luna and Mr. Ollivander, who've been held in the Malfoys' secret room--can tell Harry what's been going on in the WW. *If* anything else is going on (Wizards protecting Muggle neighbors or faking family trees for Muggle-borns or whatever), we don't hear of it. (Neville does tell Harry later that Gran out-duelled Dawlish, whom we know that *somebody* Confunded, but as I said, Harry's sources of information are limited.) We do also know that the Order is protecting Ollivander, Luna, Dean, the Dursleys, and, for awhile, Griphook, as well as themselves, and, of course, a lot of people show up to fight once LV actually begins the battle. (If you don't know where he is because he's all over Europe searching for the Elder Wand, it's a bit hard to confront him even if you have the courage and the skill.) Mike: > But Arthur Weasley, to me, is the embodiment of the whole WW problem with fighting a tyrant like Voldemort. Back in GoF, Arthur oozed fear of anything Voldemort in explaining the way it was in VW1. And Arthur, though typical of your average wizard, wasn't a resistance fighter nor a soldier. He fell asleep on guard duty and it almost cost him his life. That's the kind of mentality that permeates the WW, with a few exceptions like Moody and Kingsley. They aren't equipped with the mentality to fight the good fight, nor the soldiering acumen to know what's important. > > Why aren't they equipped? Because they are intellectually lazy. They have magic, they don't need to work hard at anything. Carol: Well, "oozed fear" is a bit unkind, and I think we can fairly compare Sirius Black's and Lupin's descriptions of the pre-Godric's Hollow WW with Arthur Weasley's. The freedom fighters (OoP), such as they were, were largely untrained and outnumbered, and many of them were just out of school (not to mention that one was a traitor). No one knew whom to trust, and everyone feared coming home to a Dark Mark hovering over their home. The Unforgiveable Curses were illegal and could not be used by the good side as weapons (unless the caster wanted to end up in Azkaban). Mr. Crouch resorted to authorizing the Aurors to use Unforgiveables, which resulted in the deaths of three DEs (Rosier, Wilkes, and one other "dead in my service, according to LV in GoF) and the arrest and imprisonment of at least ten more (the ten who escaped in OoP), all of which seems to have happened after Godric's Hollow. I'm not sure that the DEs could have been caught while LV was still powerful and the various Imperius Curses were still in effect. And, of course, it helped that those DEs who could passed themselves off as Imperius victims and went back to their ordinary lives, which, again, wouldn't have happened while LV was in power. So, on the one hand, Voldie's side was powerful and using weapons that the other side either wouldn't or couldn't use, not to mention that the good side was demoralized by fear and distrust. But I don't think that laziness and reliance on magic has much to do with it, any more than having or not having a gun to deter burglars has anything to do with willingness to fight if your country is invaded or your government is taken over by a military coup. Wizards all use the same instrument to cast spells, a wand. They vary in their skill and their knowledge of spells, but they're all armed (unless you're a Muggle-born who's had your wand taken away). But not all wizards know or are willing to use Dark magic (with good reason, if Vincent Crabbe is any indication). and, as Pippin (I think), has pointed out, the DADA classes have been worse than useless since Voldemort jinxed the position. It's possible for a motivated student like Severus Snape to learn about werewolves, and Lupin does a nice job teaching the kids about minor Dark creatures, but not until Snape teaches DADA in Harry's sixth year do they finally get a teacher who really knows what Dark magic is and how to fight it. And even he isn't teaching anyone the countercurse to Sectumsempra or how to confine a deadly curse to someone's hand or remove a curse from an object like the ring Horcrux or the opal necklace. And let's look at the WW itself. They have Aurors, roughly the equivalent of an elite police force trained to capture Dark Wizards (Scrimgeour, I think, must have worked with Mad-Eye to bring in some of those DEs post VW1), and they have some sort of Magical Reversal Squad (I'm probably getting the name wrong) to deal with things like backfiring Muggle toilets in OoP, but they have no standing army or reserve--nothing to defend themselves or their government from a takeover by a powerful Dark Wizard. You'd think they would have learned from Grindelwald. They can't always call in Dumbledore to fight their battles for them. Anyway, I'd say that it's a combination of a general population untrained in DADA (and a scarcity of qualified teachers because of the jinx; DD has good reason for not using Snape until the last possible moment); the lack of any organized defensive force; the illegality of AKs even to defend your home and family; and the success of LV's propaganda and terror tactics in VW1. Had it not been for the Prophecy and the fourteen-year respite and the Chosen One and all that, the WW would have been in serious trouble. Mike: > > I'm convinced that if Snape hadn't loved Lily, the evil side would have won this war in VW1. Snape was one of the few intellectuals that could have swayed the balance of power into Voldemort's camp. Carol: Well, yes. Even without Snape's intellect, I think that Voldie would have won. He wouldn't have been vaporized in the first place if it hadn't been for Snape's love for Lily. But I agree; Snape as a full-blown adult DE, using all his powers of intellect and invention, would have been a formidable enemy (and much more interesting, perhaps, than Tom Riddle and his Horcruxes). > Mike: > OK, so this is not a case where Harry has to recognize someone he hated was right and he was wrong. But in rushing off to the Ministry in OotP, Harry overrode Hermione's more reasoned thinking and was dead wrong. And he paid the ultimate price for it, the life of his Godfather. This hurts Harry clear to the bone, much worse than any humiliation could possibly have. > Carol respnds: Excellent example of Harry's being wrong, Mike. And, of course, he's also wrong in shifting the blame to Snape. We see in HBP, when he fears for the lives of Hermione, Ron, Neville, Ginny, and Luna after seeing the Dark Mark over Hogwarts, that he still blames himself for leading them to what could have been their deaths at the MoM. that's probably why he's reluctant to have Ron and Hermione accompany him on the Horcrux hunt. (Another instance of his being wrong; had Hermione not saved him from Nagini!Bathilda, who was summoning Voldemort, and Ron not saved him from the Horcrux that was drowning him, he'd have been dead, or as close to dead as Horcrux!Harry can get.) Mike: > I know that's not exactly what you're looking for Betsy, but it's the best I can do. Mostly because I agree with you regarding the lack of Bilding in this Bildingsroman. (thanks Carol, I can even spell it now) Carol: Erm, well, close enough. It's Bildungsroman, with a "u." Mike: Luckily, my enjoyment of the series didn't hinge upon Harry's development in the intellectual or moral categories. I wanted magic, and I got some pretty cool, if sometimes gruesome magic in DH. Simple things for simple minds, doncha know. ;-) Carol: I think that Harry's learning to trust others rather than doing everything himself, his ceasing to judge by appearances, and, above all, his ability to forgive and his willingness to sacrifice himself, in contrast to seeking vengeance, more than qualifies as the growth to maturity required by a Bildungsroman. YMMV. Mike: > Mike, who also expects a little backlash from the Snape-o-philes, but had too much fun to care Carol: Sorry, Mike. I'm not going to argue against your Snape attack because I can't make you like him any more than you can make me like caviar (vile, horrible stuff!)--or, say, James Potter and Sirius Black in SWM. I see him completely differently than you do, with grave faults, certainly, but also great wit and courage and resourcefulness and loyalty, and I only wish that he could have grown up in a world without Voldemort, becoming, say, a researcher or a Healer of Dark curses at St. Mungo's. Carol, who half-agrees, half-disagrees with Mike's post and hopes that she hasn't confused anybody by not taking a clearer stand for or against Mike's position From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 10 01:01:56 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 01:01:56 -0000 Subject: ADMIN combined with Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182483 Potioncat hurries once again down the hall to the kitchens. She tickles the pear and enters, to face a small group of truly surprised list-elves. "Does Miss need something?Kagain?" Alika Elf asks "Well, yes. You see, that is. You list elves are very wise and only make decisions for the good of the list, so I think I may have been hasty in asking you to rescind the "Cease Snape threads." The elves exchange glances. "You mean, you do want a ban on Snape threads?" Shorty elf asks. "Is Miss ill?" Potioncat holds out a wrinkled sheet of parchment. It looks as if it has been torn and stomped on and there are unmistakable scorch marks along the edge. "Take a look at this," Zippy Elf begins to read out loud. Her frown of concentration deepens as she proceeds. > Mike: > HA! You mean Snape the wimp-boy, can't even convince a broom to let > him ride it, gets hauled up by his ankles to show the world his dirty > underpants? This guy that picks on kids a third of his age, but > cowers in front of Mad-Eye (not even the real Mad-Eye mind you) like > he's still a school boy and runs off to Filch when he gets a little > scratch on his leg. > > "Potter, you lost me my medal. And after all my hard work conjuring > stretchers. Nevermind that I was going to take credit for capturing > the *dangerous* criminal, Sirius Black, even though I let three third- > year kids knock me out and spent the rest of the time unconscious." > > "Oh, don't hurt me Dumbledore." Yep, that's the Snape I remember. I > don't know about kinder course, but yeah, death was too good for > Snivellus. He shoulda had to spend the rest of his life re-potting > Mandrakes for Neville. He coulda had Draco helping him. And every > once in a while, Draco blurts out, "My mom always hated you. She > played you like a fiddle in a country band." > > > Mike, who also expects a little backlash from the Snape-o-philes, but ?? had too much fun to care When she finishes reading, Zippy Elf stares hard at Phlytie Elf, who is licking chocolate off his fingers. There is a slight smile at the corner of his mouth and he has the appearance of someone who trying not to look too amused. "The anti Snape potion has a one day limit. We can't extend the ban. This list-member Mike is exercising his rights." Potioncat frowns. She has a feeling there is a conflict of interest involved here, but she can't quite put her finger on it. Zippy Elf looks conflicted. Potioncat wonders if elf-responsibility is warring with personal opinion. "Well, it is rather harsh, but I suppose it is his point of view," Zippy sighs. Phlytie Elf nods, "Yep, and canon based. "Point of View---like unreliable narrator," Potioncat says. "Not quite seeing the Professor for who he truly is. Like Harry!" suggests Zippy Elf. Potioncat scans the parchment again and reads, "wimp-boy, Snivellus, fiddle in a country band?KNo, I'd say this is more like James. Yep, right down to the " She turns and starts out the door. "You're right of course. Let's keep the dialogue open." The list elves gave a sigh of relief, but just as the door closed they may have heard Potioncat say, "Too bad, there would have been firewhiskey for you." (Potioncat was played by herself. The list elves were portrayed by celebrity impersonators and may not accurately reflect their opinions.) From willsonkmom at msn.com Thu Apr 10 03:19:22 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 03:19:22 -0000 Subject: James's Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182484 "Jayne" > > > > Hi > > I am delurking to ask a question that I have wondered about > > for a while. We Know that Sirius went to stay with James at > > his parents house, but we never find out what happened to > > James's parents. Were they alive when Harry was born ? > > Were they alive whan James and Lily died/ If so why did they > > not make contact with Harry or take him in to bring up? > > bboyminn: > JKR said that James parents were elderly, having had James > late in life, and that they had succumb to a wizard's illness. > Though logically, this had not happened yet when James was > 16 because that is the age that Sirius left home and stayed > with the Potter family. So, in James 7th year at Hogwarts, > or immediately after James left Hogwarts, Mr and Mrs Potter > must have died. Potioncat: I think JKR has also said that she killed off both James's parents and Lily's parents (off-page) so that Harry would be an orphan. She didn't work them into the plot, just did away with them. Here's something to chew on, if you'd like. Take a look at the Black family tree which JKR made-up for a charity auction. Look to the right of scorch-mark #3. You'll see Dorea Black married a Potter and had one un-named son. Is this James's parents? Who realy knows? Here's the link. http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/blackfamilytree.html My personal opinion is that this family tree is not canon and bears no connection to the story. There's several apparant math errors in it, and none of it played a part in subsequent books. But, oh, I did hope Marius Black was an ancestor of Snape, on Tobias's side. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 10 16:27:08 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:27:08 -0000 Subject: Scary Voldemort? WAS : Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182485 Mike wrote: > ,snip> I do think JKR tried to paint Voldemort as a very powerful and demonic figure. What with all that "you-know-who" BS, we were supposed to believe that everyone except Dumbledore was scared of him, and even Dumbledore admits that Tom knows more vile, evil magic than he does. > But, she failed and she failed in DH specifically because we got to see sooo much more of him than we got in the other six books combined. I stopped being scared of him (and I mean as a reader putting myself in Harry's shoes) when I heard all the idiotic notions that seeped out of his mouth. The Nagini-in-Bathilda was some scary and creepy magic, but there wasn't enough of that compared to what had become the mundane magic of a megalomaniac (say that 6 times fast). Carol: I don't think the problem is that we see so much of him in DH (I think for example, that seeing Godric's Hollow from his perspective worked nicely) as that, as you say, he's using mundane magic--the same old Unforgiveable Curses we've seen so much of already (and even Harry is now using two of them, which diminishes them considerably)--and he's sidetracked, as in OoP, from world (or at least British/Western European) domination by wands and Horcruxes. Like Sauron putting most of the power that was native to him into the One Ring, he's created the means for his own downfall. (Not that Sauron is anywhere near as stupid as LV at the end of Dh!) Alla: Well, to me neither what Mike described nor what you are saying is a problem on its own, but probably a mixture of two and plus something else. Let me try to explain. Everybody knows that description in GoF that Sirius gives us about atmosphere during first war where you could not trust anybody, etc. I found that paragraph to be very scary, in fact far scarier than many other things. I thought it was very effective and with no magic at all. I thought that person who has the talent to spread such mistrust between people IS to be afraid a lot. I wonder if something like this would have helped me to be more scared of Lordie Thing. Like if Trio would have suddenly started to doubt themselves, their every move, etc and they would not quite understand why and there were signs that each of them could be a traitor, but it was always a fake planted by Voldemort or something like this. I do not know, I am not trying to write a new story, as I said, it does not turn me off or anything, because if anything in DH I was MORE scared of Voldemort, not less, it is just initially I started from very low point of scariness. I am just trying to work it out for myself, I mean as I said before I so do give him points for Ministry take over. Well done Voldie, sometimes you can think. And sometimes you know that to get a job done, you should not rely on your minions and do it yourself, like killing Amelia Bones. But but your overwhelming stupidity in untying Harry instead of killing him in GoF is just oh so very hard to forget Voldie dear. Here he is, your enemy helpless in pain and scared and instead of finishing him off with nice quick Avada, what do you do? Oh yes, you want to play. STUPID Voldie, Stupid. So what I am trying to say I guess what I would love to see more from Voldie is using his bold head with red eyes more often and more effectively. And well, his behavior in OOP is also seems bizarre to me. I mean, I guess if he is a psychopath, then it is not bizarre, but then I would need more random acts of madness, I suppose. And of course more creepy magic with Batilda would be nice too. He could not just apparate in MoM and take prophecy? I mean, with fight or no fight, it still seems to be to be easier operation than to try and lure Harry in as well. I mean, get prophecy first, kill Harry later? I do not know, as I said, I think his scariness improved in DH to me, but I still wanted more. JMO, Alla From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 10 17:28:57 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:28:57 -0000 Subject: Scary Voldemort? WAS : Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182486 Alla: > But but your overwhelming stupidity in untying Harry instead of > killing him in GoF is just oh so very hard to forget Voldie dear. > Here he is, your enemy helpless in pain and scared and instead of > finishing him off with nice quick Avada, what do you do? Oh yes, you > want to play. STUPID Voldie, Stupid. Pippin: But it isn't stupid from Voldie's point of view. He doesn't want to break things so he can take over the world. He wants to take over the world so he can break things. Like Dudley, but with more imagination. JKR wants us to understand why the WW is afraid of Voldemort, but she doesn't want *us* to be afraid of him. We are supposed to pity him in the end, as Harry does. Essentially Harry discovers he's not afraid of Voldemort, he's only afraid of dying. Alla: > He could not just apparate in MoM and take prophecy? I mean, with > fight or no fight, it still seems to be to be easier operation than > to try and lure Harry in as well. I mean, get prophecy first, kill > Harry later? Pippin: The book explains that. Voldemort wanted the Ministry to keep ignoring his return. And after all, Scrimgeour did manage to delay the takeover by a year, so there was something to Voldemort's concerns. As Dumbledore says, it was foolish of Tom to go to the Ministry that night. I think JKR shows that Voldemort veers irrationally between being overcautious and being overbold. Pippin From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 10 18:25:23 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:25:23 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182487 --- "Carol" wrote: > > Mike wrote: > > ,snip> I do think JKR tried to paint Voldemort as a very > >powerful and demonic figure. What with all that "you-know- > >who" BS, we were supposed to believe that everyone except > >Dumbledore was scared of him, and even Dumbledore admits > >that Tom knows more vile, evil magic than he does. > > > But, she failed and she failed in DH specifically because > > we got to see sooo much more of him ... > > Carol responds: > > I'd say that she does more than that, with LV's ability to possess > people (SS/Ps and CoS), the magic that restores him first to fetal > form and then to snake-faced human form (GoF), the Inferi and that > horrible potion in HBP, his Legilimency (introduced in OoP and shown > to be really invasive and horrible--all that it's cracked up to be > and more--in DH--and, BTW, Snape's Occlumency is indeed "superb" to > withstand it); all the original Order members killed off or > disappearing (OoP); the duel with DD in OoP, which might have been > a stand-off if it hadn't been for the arrival of the Aurors and > would have resulted in disaster for Possessed!Harry had not his > ability to love been unendurable. And, of course, Horcruxes are > pretty horrible in themselves, and his early powers (telekinesis, > control of animals, making people feel pain without a wand) > indicate that he really is more than usually gifted, with the > potential and the personality to become evil and dangerous (HBP). > The flying without a broom in DH is interesting but not > particularly dark; Snape can do it, too, but the control of > Nagini ("Dinner, Nagini!") is pretty horrifying and sets us > up for more confrontations with this most loathsome of Horcruxes. > (Bathilda!Nagini is perhaps the most horrifying bit of Dark > magic in the entire series.) I don't know about you, but I was > also spellbound by Ron's confrontation with the locket Horcrux, > which shows Tom Riddle's ability to read others' thoughts and > psychologically manipulate them (the diary redux). What I don't > see, though, is any spectacular magic (...) being performed by > the Elder Wand. Voldemort relies on his old > stand-bys, AK and Crucio ... bboyminn: Once again, not contradicting Carol, but merely using her post as a jumping off point. I think the real world serves as a nice model for the fictional world, though some seem to forget that. Look at all the real and cruel dictators in the real world. Why are they scary? Not because they do anything particularly scary themselves, but because they are the instrument by which scary evil things get done. Take Hitler for example, Hitler was a dork, why should we be scared of him, or consider him evil, he probably personally kill or tortured very few people. Yet, countless people were killed and tortured by his order, and that is what makes him scary and evil. Hitler was a great orator, charismatic and clever. He excelled at getting people to willingly do his bidding, even when his bidding was the most evil and illogical of things. Hitler, like all dictators, displayed a personal ruthlessness that intimidated people. You felt that if you did not do his bidding, the cost would be extremely high, higher than any living person would dare to pay. So, Hitler only had to personally kill, maim, or torture a very few people, just enough to convince anyone who considered opposing him, that the penalty would be sure, swift, and cruel. Whether eager or reluctant, Hitler had an outstanding gift for getting people to do what he asked. Yet, look at Hitler as a person, from an objective distance, and he is, as I said, a geeky dork. The same is true of Voldemort, he is a great orator; powerfully charismatic, and intimidatingly ruthless. He can tell people what they want to hear, twist that message to his own agenda, and convince people to do evil and despicable things in his name and in the name of their seemly common agenda. Let me pause for a moment for a short, but hopefully relevant, anecdote. When I was younger, I was studying Karate, and after practice I went to the most dangerous and redneck bar in town with some weightlifter/karate friends. They were my ticket in the door and my safety while I was there. As we talked and drank, the subject came up of who was the more dangerous street fighter, a person trained in Karate or a typical bar-brawler. To their surprise, I said the bar-brawler, and my friends and not-so-much friends asked for an explanation. The explanation was that a karate student CAN hit you, but a bar-brawler WILL. It is the utter unpredictability of a bar- brawler that makes them so dangerous, very much like the Giants. If you annoy them, they'll punch you out just to simplify things. That is analogous to the DE's and Voldemort, it is not that they can curse you, it is that they will. When they are around, you must walk on eggshells. You must tread every so lightly and delicately because at the most minor and insignificant provocation, they won't hesitate to curse and possible kill you and everyone associated with you. That creates a paralyzing atmosphere of fear and inaction, just as it does in the real world. We do see Voldemort kill a sufficient number of people to indicate that he is both dangerous and evil. But more evil is, either through persuasion or intimidation or magical coercion, his ability to get evil things done in his name. In hindsight, looking at Voldemort, Hitler, or any other ruthless dictator, we surely ask how and why did this happen. What the man was saying and doing was so hopelessly illogical and irrational, and yet, that charismatic man was able to accomplish the most despicable things. Things that in hindsight make no sense at all. That is the deep seated evilness of men like this, that they can get otherwise seemingly rational men to act in the most evil and irrational ways. Just passing it along. Steve/bboyminn From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Thu Apr 10 19:17:35 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:17:35 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182488 > bboyminn: > Take Hitler for example, Hitler was a dork, why should we be > scared of him, or consider him evil, he probably personally > kill or tortured very few people. Yet, countless people were > killed and tortured by his order, and that is what makes him > scary and evil. Hitler was a great orator, charismatic and > clever. He excelled at getting people to willingly do his > bidding, even when his bidding was the most evil and illogical > of things. Magpie: Voldemort was none of these things. Hitler was loved by a nation and books have been understandably written about his "willing executioners." In canon we get some examples of Pureblood Supremacy outside of Voldemort. But Voldemort is supposed to be feared and hated by everybody while having a group of thug followers who are already up for doing evil and illogical things. He doesn't have the WW on his side and helping him do stuff, most of them hate him without getting it together and using their super powers to stop him. Steve: > Hitler, like all dictators, displayed a personal ruthlessness > that intimidated people. You felt that if you did not do his > bidding, the cost would be extremely high, higher than any > living person would dare to pay. So, Hitler only had to > personally kill, maim, or torture a very few people, just enough > to convince anyone who considered opposing him, that the penalty > would be sure, swift, and cruel. Magpie: Voldemort's followers are desperate to not make him angry, but Arthur Weasley isn't supposed to be doing his bidding because he thinks the cost of rebellion is extremely high, so high that any living person would never pay it. (Why did Sirius claim Peter "Should have died!" if this is the case? Why is this exact kind of behavior so looked down on by most of our characters?) As a reader I don't believe it at all. Why should I? I've seen that Voldemort is vulnerable. People DID, by contrast, refuse to do Hitler's bidding. Many more people were very eager to do his bidding than were eager to do Voldemort's Steve: > The same is true of Voldemort, he is a great orator; powerfully > charismatic, and intimidatingly ruthless. He can tell people > what they want to hear, twist that message to his own agenda, > and convince people to do evil and despicable things in his name > and in the name of their seemly common agenda. Magpie: No he isn't. He makes dramatic (and overdramatic) speeches for his DEs in between crucioing them, but he does not whip crowds into the kind of frenzy Hitler did. He's not known for being a great orator or even charismatic to most people. He was charismatic as a student but not as Voldemort. The DEs don't represent the WW at large. I forget how Dumbledore describes them, but he accurately points out the kind of people who were attracted to Death Eating. Steve: > That is analogous to the DE's and Voldemort, it is not that > they can curse you, it is that they will. Magpie: So will a lot of people in the WW, including those on the good side. Steve: When they are > around, you must walk on eggshells. You must tread every so > lightly and delicately because at the most minor and > insignificant provocation, they won't hesitate to curse and > possible kill you and everyone associated with you. That > creates a paralyzing atmosphere of fear and inaction, just > as it does in the real world. Magpie: This does describe how Death Eaters act around Voldemort. But should the entire country keep walking on eggshells because this one guy-- or even a group of them--have such terrible tempers? That doesn't at all line up with the personalities the good guys claim to have. Gryffindor, the house of the brave, isn't it? The more snarly Voldemort got the more eager to whup his ass I'd imagine a lot of them would get. Steve: > We do see Voldemort kill a sufficient number of people to > indicate that he is both dangerous and evil. But more evil > is, either through persuasion or intimidation or magical > coercion, his ability to get evil things done in his name. Magpie: People don't by in large do evil in Voldemort's name. He attracts people who also like to do evil--the DEs, Dolores Umbridge takes well to the task of ridding the world of Muggleborns, for instance-- she's an example of somebody who obviously liked this sort of thing anyway. But the WW at large is not doing evil in his name. He hasn't inspired the WW in general and it doesn't believe he's right. He only inspires his thugs and scares everyone else. In the case of real dictators people can study what made them work, though, and I think it's usually complicated. It's not just the personality of the person but the society itself, the time period, etc. With Voldemort we don't have to ask how he got people to do evil things, because mostly he didn't. It's only his DEs that are acting out his agenda, and sympathizers like Mrs. Black and Umbridge, but they weren't warped by Voldemort. He didn't corrupt rational men, he attracted the irrational and the rational didn't mount much of a defense, even while being presented as if they should. Because of they were all really just folding out of fear, they'd all be Peter Pettigrew. Intead they're more like maybe the English bravely surviving through the blitz, only without doing much else. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 10 19:37:46 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:37:46 -0000 Subject: Scary Voldemort? WAS : Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182489 Alla wrote: > But but your overwhelming stupidity in untying Harry instead of killing him in GoF is just oh so very hard to forget Voldie dear. Here he is, your enemy helpless in pain and scared and instead of finishing him off with nice quick Avada, what do you do? Oh yes, you want to play. STUPID Voldie, Stupid. Carol responds: I think I understand his thinking here. he doesn't want to kill a tied-up, helpless, wandless Harry, which anyone could do (I'm ignoring the shared drop of blood an all that here since LV has no idea what he's done or that Harry has a soul bit in him). He wants to show that Harry is not some worthy rival, not the "one with the power," just an ordinary schoolboy with a scar, and the only way to do that is in what Voldie considers a fair fight, a by-the-rules duel, which will once and for all demonstrate his superiority to Harry, who will also be killed. Voldie has no doubt that he'll win; he just wants to play with his prey, Bella-like, and erase all doubts in the DE's minds that the boy who once (through no power or action or thought of his own) vaporized Voldie might do it again. (Besides, we know what happened last time with a nice, quick Avada! I don't think it would have worked this time, either, even if Harry had been disarmed and the brother-wand thing, which Voldie could not have anticipated, hadn't come into play. The shared drop of blood would have kept Harry from fully dying but there would have been no Dumbledore to meet him at King's Cross. Voldie probably would only have killed his own Horcrux.) Regardless of what would have happened if Voldie had tried to kill a wandless Harry, I understand the psychology behind dueling him and showing him to be no threat to the great Lord Voldemort. More reason for the DEs to fear and obey and respect him, more proof that he's deathless, because the Boy Who Lived is now as dead as Cedric. Only, of course, it didn't happen that way. (Thwarting the Prophecy doesn't work, Tom!) But Voldie is right about one thing" Harry himself doesn't have any extraordinary abilities other than Parseltongue and the scar link to Voldie's mind, just a wand that won't let him kill Harry. Harry could not have defeated Voldie in a duel if it weren't for the brother wands. He's not Voldie's match or anywhere near it in skill or power, and that's what Voldie was trying to show. Alla: > He could not just apparate in MoM and take prophecy? I mean, with fight or no fight, it still seems to be to be easier operation than to try and lure Harry in as well. I mean, get prophecy first, kill Harry later? Carol responds: I don't think you can Apparate directly into the Department of Mysteries, only into the Atrium. From there, you have to take the lift down to the ninth floor and get through that locked door (which is being guarded around the clock by a rotating crew of Order members under an Invisibility Cloak). I'm not sure, but I think that Voldie must have seen the corridor leading to that door in someone's mind, perhaps Lucius Malfoy's. I'm not sure why he later knows more about it since he never actually talks to Bode, the Unspeakable who's Imperiused by Lucius Malfoy and then murdered by a "pot plant" (Devil's Snare). Anyway, if LV could just Apparate into the Hall of Prophecy, he'd have done it (or sent Lucius, who has easy access to the MoM as a friend of Fudge's, or Macnair, who's a Ministry employee) to do it before he found that not even an Unspeakable like Bode can remove the Prophecy from the shelf. How Voldie knew (and conveyed to Harry, first accidentally through dreams and then deliberately) what the Hall of Prophecy actually looked like and which row it was in (97, IIRC), I don't know. But even if he could get into the MoM without being seen (Poly-juiced Voldie? Voldie in an Invisibility Cloak, which the DEs don't seem to have once barty Jr. is soul-sucked?), I don't think that he could have gotten through that door. Alohomora isn't going to work. Which also raises the question of how he got into the MoM on the night that Mr. Weasley was attacked and how he got Nagini there. Maybe Lucius took him there via the Visitor's Entrance and Stupefied or Confunded the Security Wizard, but how did they get Nagini in? **Dark Magic,** I suppose. But, still, he couldn't get through the door (and after Nagini bit Mr. Weasley, he had to make a hasty retreat). Carol, hoping to find answers to some of these questions in her five-hundredth rereading of OoP (Sorry--I've been overexposed to hyperbole via the HP books: hands the size of dustbin lids, handkerchiefs the size of tablecloths, and all that) From bawilson at citynet.net Fri Apr 11 01:36:32 2008 From: bawilson at citynet.net (Bruce Alan Wilson) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:36:32 -0400 Subject: James's Parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182490 JKR said in answer to a question from a reader--when I don't remember, it was somewhere in the middle of the series--that James' parents had died of old age; she said that they married and had him late in life. 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 horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 01:38:19 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:38:19 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182491 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Right. Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been > > beaten before Harry was born. > > > >>Pippin: > I agree, Voldemort should have been stopped when he was a real baby, > not a stunted imitation of one. But that would have taken a world > that pays far more attention to the fate of its children than the > WW -- or ours. > Betsy Hp: Actually, the Muggle world *did* recognize something wasn't right about young Tom Riddle. That's why Dumbledore was warned about him, and that's why he was afraid Dumbledore was there to take him to a mental hospital (IIRC). Though I do agree, the WW is beyond terrible with how they treat their children. Or each other. It's a world of tooth and claw that happily eat their young. Within the WW... well, since Dumbledore decided the best thing he could do was nothing, and since there are no real police or detectives or anything of that ilk in the WW, they missed Tom's OTT psycho-killer behavior. However, once Tom shed his past ties (and his nose) and took on the name, "Voldemort", he should have been stopped. And fairly easily from what I saw displayed in DH. The WW mainly disliked him and his agenda; his followers were thugs, inches away from turning on each other; he ripped his powerful followers to shreds (what happened to Regulus should have spelled his doom); and he was obsessed with his side project. > >>Mike: > > > > I do think JKR tried to paint Voldemort as a very powerful > > and demonic figure. What with all that "you-know-who" BS... > > > > But, she failed and she failed in DH specifically because we got > > to see sooo much more of him than we got in the other six books > > combined. > > > >>Carol: > > > > I don't think the problem is that we see so much of him in DH (I > > think for example, that seeing Godric's Hollow from his > > perspective worked nicely) as that, as you say, he's using > > mundane magic--the same old Unforgiveable Curses we've seen so > > much of already... > >>Alla: > Well, to me neither what Mike described nor what you are saying is a > problem on its own, but probably a mixture of two and plus something > else. > > So what I am trying to say I guess what I would love to see more > from Voldie is using his bold head with red eyes more often and more > effectively. > Betsy Hp: I lean more towards Mike's thinking: Voldemort becomes more and more of a joke the more we see of him. When Voldemort was a shadowy figure we knew nothing about, other than that he brought the WW to its knees, he seemed pretty bad. It's when he's dragged into the light in DH, that we see the main villain is humorously naked. But I also agree with both Alla and Carol that part of that nakedness is that he's an idiot without much in the way of special powers. Plus, while he does have the WW gripped pretty firmly within his fist, we don't see how he managed it. Voldemort certainly puts little effort into it. I think one guy gets Imperioused and another gets killed, and Bob's your Uncle, he's running the show? Really? Just like that? And unfortunately, rather than feeling that JKR was making an "important point" about how easily societies can fall to men like Voldemort, I feel more like she was just phoning that part of her story in. She wanted to concentrate on the Voldemort vs. Harry aspects of Voldemort's story, not his taking over things. But rather than broadstroke in some background stuff we could fill in ourselves (as she did so well previously regarding VWI) she decided to rely on handwaving. Which strikes me as lazy and insulting. And it has the side-effect of making every member of her Order out to be incredibly incompetent. Or (in my case) her story highly unreadable. > >>Pippin: > The WW also didn't have a lot of civil rights in the first place. > There's no free press, no right to counsel, due process is more > honored in the breach than the observance, and croneyism is the rule > rather than the exception, as is discrimination against minorities. > > We keep invoking grass roots resistance movements as if everyone > should know such things are possible. But do they? > Betsy Hp: For me, because the WW has such a wild west feel to it (the strong survive, the weak best find someone strong to cling to), the idea that the various king-pins who must have been around would have fallen so easily to Voldemort seems highly unbelievable. So it's not so much grass roots resistance in a grand and noble manner that I'm thinking of. More, fellow mob-bosses not rolling over easily for this new kid in town. Again, we'd had hints back in the day the Voldemort *did* recruit the "old families" that we (or at least, I) assumed were the mob- bosses of the time. The Malfoys and the Blacks being prime examples. But then in DH we see it ain't so. His followers are all fairly stupid thugs. Not a king-pin among them. Which means the laws of rule and order should have been working. Only apparently they weren't because there's Voldemort, unstopped. Wich means, nothing about his rise or the WW for that matter makes much sense to me. Which means I see the author moving furniture willy-nilly so her designated hero can have his day. > >>Pippin: > In any case, it's perfectly legitimate for an author to be more > interested in why people fail against tyranny than in how they > succeed. Betsy Hp: Sure. Only, I'd prefer it be a recognizable tyrant, not a make- believe monster that we're only *told* is really scary and able to defeat the people who fought him. I don't think JKR told a story about why people fail against tyranny. I think she was more telling a story about a really cool little boy named Harry and his super awesome totally neat-o adventures. With a "tyrant" pasted on. > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when > > you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. > >>Pippin: > Why should that be horrible? Betsy Hp: Generally people don't like realizing they've been an ass. But, depending on your sense of humor and also, the amount of pain your preconceived notion may have caused, that moment may be less horrible and more plain embarrassing. Personally I like a lot of sturm und drang in my stories, so I'd have prefered Harry's moment to be pretty big. But that's just personal preference. I'd have been pleased with anything, really. > >>Pippin: > > Of course, if you were independent, then you'd have to blame > yourself if your world wasn't as lovely as you'd like it to be. Betsy Hp: Or, if you were an adult, you'd feel the need to take responsibility for your own actions and the consequences they wrought. (Part of being independent, yes. And part of the attraction of remaining a child. It's always nice if you can blame someone else for any bad behavior on your part.) > >>Pippin: > And Harry did feel that way in OOP. He couldn't stand to blame > himself or the people he loved for Sirius's death, so he chose to > blame Snape instead. Betsy Hp: Right. And, IIRC, he's never acknowledged the part he played in Sirius's death. That would have been a nice little moment of realization on his part to move him into adulthood. But... > >>Pippin: > But if everyone is deeply interdependent, then you never have to > feel uniquely to blame--you can focus on trying to heal the world > without obsessing over who is at fault for it. Betsy Hp: Yes, and (as I see it anyway) you may childishly refuse to take any responsibility for your own actions. Something Harry continues to do right up to the end. Which is why the WW remains as ugly and brutal as ever. The kind of tooth and claw, hate filled, hard scrabble world that a world run by children *would* look like, IMO. And Harry remains forever a spoiled little boy, prince of his world without any effort on his part, always beloved, never blamed, living the Dursley dream. Betsy Hp (who read "Lord of the Flies" and actually thinks wizards being locked into perpetual childishness explains a lot about the state of the WW) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 01:51:51 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:51:51 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182492 Betsy Hp: Plus, while he does have the WW gripped pretty firmly within his fist, we don't see how he managed it. Voldemort certainly puts little effort into it. I think one guy gets Imperioused and another gets killed, and Bob's your Uncle, he's running the show? Really? Just like that? Alla: I think we do see it with Ministry (sorry, I know I keep talking about it, but I just love how JKR did it, love). So, what do we see? We see as early as GoF Malfoy already being buddy buddy with Fudge, accordingly I think it is a very valid assumption that if Malfoy is friends with Minister, he is not just friends with him, but with his employees as well, some of them anyways. Check. And with Umbridge, aren't they buddies as well? What I said before, Voldemort making sure that one of the decent people who can be candidate for a minister's position is, well dead from his hand. Check. We have Scrimgeour? Surround him by people, who are, well Voldemort's sympathizers, yes Imperio couple of them. I think it was not just like that. And when Ministry is taken over, taking over WW sadly is easy IMO. Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 20:08:53 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:08:53 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182493 Betsy Hp wrote: > However, once Tom shed his past ties (and his nose) and took on the name, "Voldemort", he should have been stopped. And fairly easily from what I saw displayed in DH. The WW mainly disliked him and his agenda; his followers were thugs, inches away from turning on each other; he ripped his powerful followers to shreds (what happened to Regulus should have spelled his doom); and he was obsessed with his side project. Carol responds: The Aurors seem to have done a pretty good job taking out the DEs after Voldie was vaporized at Godric's Hollow, killing Wilkes, Rosier, and the unnamed DE mentioned by LV in GoF as "dead in his service (unless he means Regulus, in which case, he has no idea how and why Regulus died) and arresting Dolohov and Mulciber and Karkaroff (who is essentially traded for Rookwood after K. informs on him) and others, including Bellatrix, the Lestrange brothers, and Barty Jr. Except for barty Jr., rescued and kept under the Imperius Curse by his father when he ought to have died in Azkaban, and Karkaroff, who did a plea bargain, all of those DEs were in prison until OoP, after Wormtail had resurrected Voldie. It seems that the DEs were formidable only when they had a leader (and more so in VW1, before Voldie heard the Prophecy, which certainly distracted him from his takeover and led to his vaporization and, ultimately, to his death. (I'm not sure whether that what you mean by a side project, but Voldie certainly does have that tendency: first the Potters, especially Harry; then getting Harry's blood for the resurrection potion (and killing Harry afterwards); then hearing the Prophecy; and finally, obtaining the Elder Wand. (I didn't list stealing the Philosopher's Stone as a side project because he needed to obtain a body of his own before he did anything else.) I'm not sure what you mean about what happened with Regulus spelling hid doom. I don't think that voldie had any more idea what happened to regulus than anyone else in the WW. Here's a boy recruit who offers him the use of his House-Elf, loyally serving the purposes of the Dark Lord. Next thing he knows, the boy has vanished from the face of the earth. Maybe he thinks that Regulus died "in [his] service"; he certainly had no idea that Regulus had stolen the locket Horcrux, which he thought was safe on its island in the cave, protected by powerful Dark magic (the potion and the Inferi), as well as various forms of magical concealment that only a highly skilled Wizard (certainly not the barely of-age Regulus) could detect. At any rate, large numbers of people were Imperiused in VW1 and others were intimidated into doing LV's bidding. those who resisted, notably the Order members, were systematically killed off. Once Voldie fell and the Imperius Curses lost their power, it became fairly easy to capture his followers (unless they could disguise themselves as rats). Even those who pleaded the Imperius Curse were discreet about their law-breaking and illegal activities. But it was different when Voldie was in power and no one trusted anyone else. As for the followers being at each other's throats, I'll grant you that there's jealousy and rivalry, and we do see Karkaroff bargaining for his own freedom by giving the names of other DEs (it doesn't really matter that Rookwood is the only one that isn't already dead, imprisoned, or protected by Dumbledore), but we never see the DEs actually at each other's throats and willing to kill each other to sit at Voldie's right hand. And I really don't see why you think that finding Voldie and bringing him down is so easy. Certainly, he couldn't hide in a crowd with his missing nose, but there are other ways of hiding in the WW. Betsy Hp: > I lean more towards Mike's thinking: Voldemort becomes more and more of a joke the more we see of him. When Voldemort was a shadowy figure we knew nothing about, other than that he brought the WW to its knees, he seemed pretty bad. It's when he's dragged into the light in DH, that we see the main villain is humorously naked. > > But I also agree with both Alla and Carol that part of that nakedness is that he's an idiot without much in the way of special powers. Carol responds: Either my post was unclear or you're mistaking my meaning. I did not say that Voldie was an idiot with no special powers. What I said, or, at least, what I meant is not that Voldie doesn't have special powers but that we see disappointingly little of those special powers in DH. Voldie *does* have special powers. To reiterate, we learn early on that he's a Parselmouth who can control Basilisks and that he can possess people, both powers being scary and rare. In GoF, he comes up with potions (in at least one case, accompanied with incantations) that first give him a fetal form and then restore his lost body. And we learn that he can break through very strong Memory Charms and learn whatever his victim is concealing or has forgotten (Bertha Jorkins). In OoP, we learn about his Legilimency, which is shown in DH to be truly formidable (if we look at what he does to Gregorovitch, we see exactly what Snape is enduring even as he hides part of the information through his supersubtle Occlumency--and what no one but Snape, and probably Dumbledore, can resist). And we see his duel with DD in the MoM. In HBP, we see his early ability to do wandless magic, controlling objects, animals, and people, torturing them without a wand. We see the Inferi and that potion, and we see the results of the curse that Snape confined to his hand. In DH (aside the Legilimency he uses on Gregorovitch), we see Bathilda!Nagini. However, the only other bits of unusual magic that we see from Voldemort in DH are not particularly Dark: he can fly without a broom (but so can Snape) and he creates a protective bubble for Nagini, into which he sucks poor Severus. (Okay, that part is pretty Dark, as is his control of Horcrux!Nagini.) We do see the operation of one of the Horcruxes, the locket, but we don't see the cup or the tiara doing anything, so that's disappointing. And so is his loss of control and his reliance on the old stand-bys, Crucio and AK. (The only "idiotic" behavior is killing off his own followers and being sidetracked by the Elder Wand instead of consolidating his power. the Elder Wand is also disappointing; we don't see what he does with it that makes him think that his "extraordinary magic" isn't sufficiently extraordinary and he needs to kill the man he thinks is the master of the wand. That, to me, is a real weak point in the book though no one seems to agree with me.) So. LV can create Inferi. He can encase the twelve-foot Nagini in a five-foot tall corpse. He can create really horrible potions. He can persorm telekinesis. So why do we see him doing so little with those formidable powers in DH? Only, as far as I can tell, because he's off on what should have been a wild goose chase (and would have been, had Harry not dropped the portrait of young Grindelwald in Bathilda's cottage) for the world's most powerful wand. (Meanwhile, however, no one can track him down; all they know is that he's out of the country. And, if they did find him, who could fight him? Mad-Eye and Scrimgeour are already dead and were never his match. Dumbledore, who *was* his match, knew that he couldn't be killed because of the Horcruxes and didn't try. (He also knew that Fudge and the Aurors were on their way, so all he had to do was hold Voldie off and keep him from possessing Harry, which it turns out that he can't do, anyway, until they arrive.) So my complaint is not that Voldie is a joke of a villain. It's that JKR doesn't make better use of the powers she has already shown him to have and instead shows him losing control and killing off his own followers with, apparently, repeated AKs. (We don't hear of some spectacular spell, cast with the yew wand since he didn't have the Elder Wand yet, that killed numerous people at one time. And the wandless Lucius Malfoy somehow managed to flee the scene and survive.) That's the sort of thing I object to in DH, especially since we don't see the number of Voldie's followers significantly diminished in the Battle of Hogwarts. Just whom did he kill, anyway? Nor does his action seem to have any effect on the loyalty of his followers, with the exception of the humiliated Malfoys.) Betsy Hp: > For me, because the WW has such a wild west feel to it (the strong > survive, the weak best find someone strong to cling to), the idea > that the various king-pins who must have been around would have > fallen so easily to Voldemort seems highly unbelievable. So it's not > so much grass roots resistance in a grand and noble manner that I'm > thinking of. More, fellow mob-bosses not rolling over easily for > this new kid in town. Carol responds: But we don't see any fellow mob bosses because no one can match Voldemort's Dark magic. We don't see anyone else turning themselves snakelike and claiming to have taken measures to make themselves immortal. (Dumbledore has seen to that; no one else can make a Horcrux.) So we have unethical but essentially lazy types like Lucius Malfoy, who get their way by money and connections; and we have bright, ambitious boys like the young Severus Snape and Barty Jr. who apparently want scope for their talents; and deluded kids like Regulus, who think that Voldemort will put the Pure-Bloods in power where they belong by virtue of the natural aristocracy; and cowards like Peter Pettigrew, who see that the likes of schoolground bully James Potter is as nothing to the power of the Dark Lord; and people like Dumbledore and Mr. Crouch who use their own power to fight him. Any gifted Slytherins (unless they're of an older generation like Slughorn) are more likely to join him than oppose him. And when he goes away, if they're not in Azkaban or dead (or following their own aganda like Snape), they go back to their old lives and wait for a new, really powerful Dark Lord to arise. The likes of Grindelwald and Voldemort is not often to be found. And if some upstart, say Lucius Malfoy or an evil Snape, were to attempt it, they'd find themselves dead on Voldemort's return because, unlike him, they don't have Horcruxes. Now I *would* like to see Voldemort struck by an AK to see whether he can resist it, and it would have been lovely if Wormtail had found the courage to dump Fetal!mort in the incomplete potion and abandon him there, without adding the requisite blood, bone, and flesh, but that didn't happen. so, all we have is the duel with Dumbledore (and Voldie duelling three opponents at once in the Battle of Hogwarts) to show that no one else was his match. Maybe a Snape who was truly master of the Elder Wand could have killed him *with* the Elder Wand after all the Horcruxes, including Harry's scar, were destroyed, but JKR didn't write it that way. Betsy: > Again, we'd had hints back in the day the Voldemort *did* recruit the "old families" that we (or at least, I) assumed were the mob- bosses of the time. The Malfoys and the Blacks being prime examples. But then in DH we see it ain't so. His followers are all fairly stupid thugs. Not a king-pin among them. Carol responds: But where did you get the idea that these people were mob bosses? Sure, the Blacks (even Sirius as a teenager) consider themselves to be some sort of natural aristocracy, but they lead the lives of country squires (Lucius) or secretive Dark Wizards hiding from Muggles (Orion and Walburga Black). We don't see anyone other than Voldemort, Grindelwald, and the young Dumbledore interested in world domination. The Lestrange brothers are Pure-Bloods probably attracted to LV's agenda for much the same reasons as Regulus Black. And Bellatrix has a desire to torture and control others but is not at all daunted by the idea of serving a "master" who can teach her more Dark magic. As for LV's followers being "stupid thugs," I'd say that's only partially true. Snape and Lucius aside, some of them appear to be quite intelligent (Travers and Mulciber, for example, or the sadistic Dolohov, whom we see at his evil worst in OoP.) Possibly their wits were somewhat dulled by Azkaban (though Travers still seems pretty sharp until Harry Imperios him twice). And none of those who were arrested can have their original wands, which would have been destroyed before they were sent to Azkaban, which raises the question of how Bellatrix could have the wand that Ollivander sold her way back when. Even the brutal-faced Yaxley seems reasonably intelligent. But, yes, the Carrows, Thorfinn Rowle, CrabbnGoyle Sr. and their sons, who may or may not have been recruited, seem no more intelligent than Fenrir Greyback and the Snatchers (none of whom is a real DE). I would have liked to see the more intelligent DEs put to better use. I guess we have to make do with the seeming DE, Snape, in "The Dark Lord Ascending" to see how an intelligent DE in LV's good graces would behave. (Imagine Lucius Malfoy still loyal and armed, for example. Voldie made a serious mistake in his mistreatment of the Malfoy family.) Anyway, a mob leader can rise to power through sheer ruthlessness and brains, as long as he has followers to back him up. But, while the former DEs might have rallied around Harry Potter if he'd shown himself to be a Dark Lord in the making, with extraordinary powers that enabled him to defeat LV as an infant, they weren't going to support anyone else. (We can imagine an evil Snape putting all his intelligence and subtlety and talent and power into rivaling Voldemort, gathering followers who were either loyal or feared to question him, but nothing of the sort happened, and Snape was known to be a Half-Blood, anyway. But it doesn't matter. Snape, for all his intellect and powers, was an ordinary mortal. He could be killed. Voldemort couldn't. And that, along with those Dark powers that we don't see enough of, IMO, made all the difference.) Carol, who has finished and mailed her income tax forms, hooray! Which means the > laws of rule and order should have been working. Only apparently > they weren't because there's Voldemort, unstopped. Wich means, > nothing about his rise or the WW for that matter makes much sense to > me. Which means I see the author moving furniture willy-nilly so her > designated hero can have his day. > > > >>Pippin: > > In any case, it's perfectly legitimate for an author to be more > > interested in why people fail against tyranny than in how they > > succeed. > > Betsy Hp: > Sure. Only, I'd prefer it be a recognizable tyrant, not a make- > believe monster that we're only *told* is really scary and able to > defeat the people who fought him. I don't think JKR told a story > about why people fail against tyranny. I think she was more telling > a story about a really cool little boy named Harry and his super > awesome totally neat-o adventures. With a "tyrant" pasted on. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when > > > you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. > > > >>Pippin: > > Why should that be horrible? > > Betsy Hp: > Generally people don't like realizing they've been an ass. But, > depending on your sense of humor and also, the amount of pain your > preconceived notion may have caused, that moment may be less horrible > and more plain embarrassing. Personally I like a lot of sturm und > drang in my stories, so I'd have prefered Harry's moment to be pretty > big. But that's just personal preference. I'd have been pleased > with anything, really. > > > >>Pippin: > > > > Of course, if you were independent, then you'd have to blame > > yourself if your world wasn't as lovely as you'd like it to be. > > Betsy Hp: > Or, if you were an adult, you'd feel the need to take responsibility > for your own actions and the consequences they wrought. (Part of > being independent, yes. And part of the attraction of remaining a > child. It's always nice if you can blame someone else for any bad > behavior on your part.) > > > >>Pippin: > > And Harry did feel that way in OOP. He couldn't stand to blame > > himself or the people he loved for Sirius's death, so he chose to > > blame Snape instead. > > Betsy Hp: > Right. And, IIRC, he's never acknowledged the part he played in > Sirius's death. That would have been a nice little moment of > realization on his part to move him into adulthood. But... > > > >>Pippin: > > But if everyone is deeply interdependent, then you never have to > > feel uniquely to blame--you can focus on trying to heal the world > > without obsessing over who is at fault for it. > > Betsy Hp: > Yes, and (as I see it anyway) you may childishly refuse to take any > responsibility for your own actions. Something Harry continues to do > right up to the end. Which is why the WW remains as ugly and brutal > as ever. The kind of tooth and claw, hate filled, hard scrabble > world that a world run by children *would* look like, IMO. And Harry > remains forever a spoiled little boy, prince of his world without any > effort on his part, always beloved, never blamed, living the Dursley > dream. > > Betsy Hp (who read "Lord of the Flies" and actually thinks wizards > being locked into perpetual childishness explains a lot about the > state of the WW) > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 20:53:39 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:53:39 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182494 Alla wrote: > > I think we do see it with Ministry (sorry, I know I keep talking about it, but I just love how JKR did it, love). So, what do we see? > > We see as early as GoF Malfoy already being buddy buddy with Fudge, accordingly I think it is a very valid assumption that if Malfoy is friends with Minister, he is not just friends with him, but with his employees as well, some of them anyways. Check. > > And with Umbridge, aren't they buddies as well? What I said before, Voldemort making sure that one of the decent people who can be candidate for a minister's position is, well dead from his hand. Check. Carol responds: I don't entirely disagree with you, but I'm not sure how Umbridge is connected to killing off one of the decent people who could have been a candidate for the Ministry (I assume--please correct me if I'm wrong--that you're referring to Amelia Bones, not Dumbledore, though Dumbledore's death was certainly a prerequisite to a full-WW takeover as well). I do want to mention, though, that Lucius Malfoy's attempts to influence (or intimidate) everyone from the Board of Governors to Fudge predate Voldemort's return. Yes, when we see him in OoP talking to Fudge after Harry's hearing, he knows all too well that Voldemort is back, having witnessed the duel with Harry in the graveyard. But in GoF, when he and his family are Fudge's special guests in the top box at the QWC, and when he's trying to get DD fired in CoS and Hagrid fired in PoA, he's following his own agenda. I do think, though, that LV had Ministry employees, including Rookwood and possibly Macnair, acting as his spies and agents even in VW1. It was all a matter of time. Once he killed off Dumbledore (and that pesky Prophecy Boy, once he appeared to throw a wrench in the works), he would have taken over the Ministry sixteen years earlier, much as he did in DH, infiltrating it with his own followers; subverting those like Umbridge who could be persuaded to go along with his agenda if it meant that they could wield power of their own; Imperioing people like Pius Thicknesse whom he could use as puppets; and killing off important opponents like Mr. Crouch, Madam Bones, and Scrimgeour. Certainly, he took advantage of Macnair's being a Ministry employee already (did Fudge send him to talk to the giants, or was he only LV's emissary?) and Malfoy's connections and Rookwood's knowledge of the Ministry, but I don't think that was part of a longstanding plan. Nor do I think that Lucius (or Umbridge's DE relative, Selwyn) informed dear Dolores that LV was back, but they would certainly have informed him that she could be brought to their side, no Imperius curse necessary. (Draco may even have informed his father that she was ready to Crucio Harry for information.) Anyway, I agree with you that the Ministry takeover was well-planned. No doubt LV was planning a similar takeover from within of Hogwarts and thought that he had mostly achieved it with the exclusion of Muggle-borns and the appointment of two DEs as staff members (having first killed the Muggle-loving charity Burbage), with the supposedly loyal Snape as headmaster. (Too bad for LV, Snape was handing Harry weapons!) But if LV had continued to pursue a course like that laid out in "The Dark Lord Ascending," without being sidetracked first by Harry and then by the Elder Wand, and if Snape hadn't been helping Harry, if think that LV would have won. He'd have won the Battle of Hogwarts because Harry would not have destroyed even the locket Horcrux and wouldn't know that he had to sacrifice himself. Nor would Harry have dared to steal the cup Horcrux if he hadn't thought that he had the means of destroying it (he wouldn't even have known about it if he hadn't fortuitously used the name Voldemort and gotten himself and his friends kidnapped by Greyback and the Snatchers (no, that's not a Wizard Rock band; at least, I hope not!) Also, Voldie should have continued to use Occlumency against Harry, just to make sure that he had no access to Voldie's thoughts and plans. Carol, who thinks that Voldie could have won, even with the Prophecy, if he hadn't been his own worst enemy From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 21:43:35 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:43:35 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182495 Potioncat: Me! Me! At least, after the first reading, maybe the second or third. My great regret in life is that I never wrote the post explaining it before DH came out. Alla: Tee heee, I told you many times that if you ever decide to do comedy, let me know, I will so be sitting in the first row. Potioncat: Look at the quote. Isn't it great! Petunia's speaking jerkily, and we can see the gaps. Before DH, the reader/Harry can chalk it up to emotion. But now it looks as if she's almost saying "I heard Sev telling her about them when we were kids." And at each point, Petunia catches herself and changes the words. Alla: I wonder how much Petunia told Vernon about magical world that he seems to have no desire to interact with. I mean, that awful boy is a code and he seems to have no problem to know whom Petunia is talking about? But yeah, it looks exactly what you are saying to me. Potioncat: But you know it really wasn't Snape in love with Lily. It was more there had been friendship and later there was something of a vow or promise. But I can't see that he was in love with her the remaining two years at Hogwarts and the few years afterwards. Even with the silver doe in DD's office, I don't get a feel of romantic love, but more of devotion. Alla: What do they say about denial and river in Egypt? ;) He LOOOOOVED her, her and her red mane of hair. Oh look another thing he and Harry have in common. > Alla: > Hmmm, Petunia certainly seems to believe in souls existance. ?? Interesting. Potioncat: I think that's a fairly standard belief in an English-based culture. Maybe I'm looking at it from an American viewpoint, but even those who do not participate in organized religion seem to have the belief of souls. Alla: Well, you are probably right, but I meant that Petunia does not strike me as believer in anything except her precious normalcy. Souls, what souls Does that make sense? I mean even after I know that she is perfectly aware of magic, she just does not strike me as believer. And I am deliberately using this word as characterize someone who believes in high power, who believes in souls and does not even belongs to any particular religion, you know? Petunia does not strike me as that kind of person. IMO of course. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 11 23:04:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:04:04 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182496 Alla: > > I wonder how much Petunia told Vernon about magical world that he seems to have no desire to interact with. I mean, that awful boy is a code and he seems to have no problem to know whom Petunia is talking about? Carol responds: My impression is that Petunia at some point reluctantly confessed to Vernon that her sister was a "freak," and, when pressed, found a way to tell him that she was a witch. But she must have done it when Lily was around, or showed Vernon Lily's old Hogwarts letter, or something that would prove to Vernon that she, Petunia, wasn't crazy. After that, I think she would have kept quiet about it. Certainly, she wouldn't have told Vernon that she once wanted to go to Hogwarts herself, and I doubt that she confided anything about "that awful boy," either. To me, she seems to be choosing her words carefully, so that both Harry and Vernon will think she's referring to James. (Imagine if she had slipped and said "Severus Snape!") Anyway, from the first chapter of SS/PS onward, it seems clear that Petunia is repressing information about the WW that only occasionally escapes her (the scene where she calls Lily a "freak" who came home with her pockets full of frog spawn and this scene, which, as Potioncat points out, is punctuated by pauses in which she changes her wording to disguise her meaning, for Vernon as much as for Harry since she wants to appear as "normal" as possible in her husband's eyes. Alla: > > What do they say about denial and river in Egypt? ;) He LOOOOOVED her, her and her red mane of hair. Oh look another thing he and Harry have in common. Carol: Well, yes. He didn't want anything bad to happen to her and he didn't want her to like, much less marry, James. But it seems to me that he idealizes her, and the Doe Patronus symbolizes purity (much as a lily does)--it's beautiful and powerful and radiant and all the things that Severus imagined Lily as being. Contrast Slughorn, who liked her (as a student--I'm not suggesting any improper sexual attraction) because she was bright and cheeky, or Teen!James, who wanted her to go out with him (probably hoping for some good snogging sessions behind the greenhouse). Severus clearly has a crush on her from the first, even when they're best friends, but I think he sees her as some sort of superior being--not as knowledgeable as he is about the WW, but pure and innocent and angelic. *I* don't see her that way, but I think he does. Certainly, he's never encountered anyone like her before, either Witch or Muggle. I'm not saying that Severus didn't want to kiss Lily or marry her or whatever a normal boy of sixteen wants from the girl he's loved since they were nine, but I don't think it's a Won Won/Lavender sort of attraction at all. He likes her as a person but loves her as an ideal. And once she's dead, I think he remains celibate like an Arthurian knight fighting for his lady, only he doesn't tie her favor to his lance (wear his heart on his sleeve). She's a secret between him and Dumbledore. (Just how he could communicate with other Order members without his Patronus giving his secret away, I don't know. You'd think that Lupin, at least, would figure it out.) > Alla: > > Well, you are probably right, but I meant that Petunia does not strike me as believer in anything except her precious normalcy. Souls, what souls > > Does that make sense? I mean even after I know that she is perfectly aware of magic, she just does not strike me as believer. And I am deliberately using this word as characterize someone who believes in high power, who believes in souls and does not even belongs to any particular religion, you know? Petunia does not strike me as that kind of person. IMO of course. Carol responds: I agree with you that Petunia doesn't seem like a religious person, but JKR has taken great care to keep religious references to a minimum. The WW believes in souls, too, but we never see any Witch or Wizard going to church (unless there were some magical citizens of Godric's Hollow among the worshippers on Christmas Eve in DH). My impression, and not being British, I could be completely wrong, is that the thoroughly middle-class Dursleys value what used to be called "respectability." That is, you do what everybody else in your neighborhood does: own a nice house, mow the grass, wash the car (which is, of course, the latest model). The husband earns a good living in a white-collar job; the wife takes care of the children and keeps the house spotless. They watch TV and read magazines or the daily paper--never books--and they go to church on Sundays, not because they're religious or because they're good, moral people but because it's expected (and, besides, the boss is likely to be there with *his* wife and kids). FWIW, I assume that they're C of E (Anglican) because that would be the most "respectable" denomination, at least in England. It seems to me that the Dursleys live in the British equivalent of a Donna Reed/Leave It to Beaver/Ozzie and Harriet neighborhood, but with the technology (microwaves, computers, and video consoles) updated but the middle-class values intact. And even if I'm wrong, I'll bet that Petunia and Lily, born respectively in 1958 and 1960, grew up in that sort of neighborhood. "Respectable" people still attended church (or synagogue) in the 1960s and early 1970s. (Maybe they still do, but I got away from church attendance when I started working on my PhD and have lived in some sort of ivory tower ever since. ) Heck, I don't even know whether "respectable" people like the Dursleys wear pajamas in real life or whether that's some sort of anachronism!) Harry, BTW, knows what a vicar is (he thinks that Draco looks like one in his black dress robes in GoF), so he's had some sort of contact with the Church of England. Carol, just giving her own impression(s) and not at all sure that she's right From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 12 03:33:06 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 03:33:06 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182497 > Carol: >(Just how he could communicate with other Order members > without his Patronus giving his secret away, I don't know. You'd think > that Lupin, at least, would figure it out.) zgirnius: For this reason, I presume he never used a Patronus to communicate with the Order. We never see him do so. In OotP, he could have left the school grounds to Apparate to 12 GP in person. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 12 16:31:17 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:31:17 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182498 > > >>Pippin: > > I agree, Voldemort should have been stopped when he was a real baby, > > not a stunted imitation of one. But that would have taken a world > > that pays far more attention to the fate of its children than the > > WW -- or ours. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Actually, the Muggle world *did* recognize something wasn't right > about young Tom Riddle. Pippin: *Tom* knew there was something not right about him. But he's not the Muggle world. Mrs. Cole suspected there was something wrong but knew of nothing that would cause the Muggle world to take action. If there had been an asylum that would take Tom, she'd have sent him there -- she was not sorry to be rid of him. But I was thinking of the handsome infant who could be ignored because he scarcely cried and (one presumes) did not respond to cuddles. That should have been a warning sign, if anyone was paying attention. Betsy HP: Voldemort certainly puts little effort into it. I think one guy gets Imperioused and another gets killed, and Bob's your Uncle, he's running the show? Really? Just like that? Pippin: The mass breakout from Azkaban and subsequent coverup mentioned in DH could not have happened unless Pius Thicknesse was just the tip of the iceberg. There had to have been massive subversion in the Ministry spreading in secret all the time since Voldemort returned. It's like docking the Queen Mary -- by the time it's obvious that you're going to hit the pier, it's too late to change course. The laws of rule and order *were* working, but Voldemort made them work for him. Just as Dumbledore was recruiting people to help the Order, Voldemort was working to get them on his side -- and like Dumbledore, doing a good job of covering his tracks despite other obsessions. But Voldie had a weapon that Dumbledore refused to use. It is demonstrated in canon that most people, even skilled Aurors, can fall prey to Imperius. Gryffindors are as susceptible as anyone else. Just as you don't need applied physiology to torture if you can use the Cruciatus curse, you don't need applied psychology to persuade if you can use Imperius. It's only "handwaving" if you don't believe that mob psychology can do what the Imperius does: make people do terrible things without being able to stop themselves. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > > Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when > > > you realize your preconceived notions are wrong. > > > >>Pippin: > > Why should that be horrible? > > Betsy Hp: > Generally people don't like realizing they've been an ass. Pippin: Generally people like to realize they've become wiser. It's all in how you look at it. > Betsy Hp: > Yes, and (as I see it anyway) you may childishly refuse to take any > responsibility for your own actions. Pippin: Yep, that's what Snape is afraid of. He doesn't think anyone's really been made responsible until they've been humiliated. Not, of course, that he wants anyone to know what *he's* done. But it never works on Harry -- he felt much more responsible for what he'd done to Draco *before* Snape tried to make him feel bad about it. I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. Unless a person is very damaged he will want to do things correctly (as he's been taught to perceive correctness), he will feel responsible for the pain he perceives he has caused and he will want things to be fair. If that basic moral circuitry is not in place, you're not going to fix it by making people feel bad about themselves. If it is in place, and not lost to enchantments or psychological manipulation, then people will know what they should do, though they may feel too angry or helpless or frightened to do it. But wait, there's more *Enlightenment* -- understanding that in hurting anyone you hurt yourself, in robbing anyone you rob yourself-- that's something more than the basic moral understanding that most of us are born with (as canon sees it) -- that's a choice. And therefore it can't be forced on anyone. Enlightenment, as we see, carries with it the danger of enlightenment bias, and like any other bias, it can be manipulated to make people do terrible things. Canon suggests one should be alert to this, but that it is still better to be enlightened and biased against the unenlightened than the other way around. YMMV. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Apr 12 16:35:14 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 16:35:14 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182499 > zgirnius: > For this reason, I presume he never used a Patronus to communicate with the Order. We never see him do so. In OotP, he could have left the > school grounds to Apparate to 12 GP in person. > Pippin: As a general rule, I agree. But that night the patronus could have delivered its message to Tonks, who would not have known its significance, or directly to Sirius, who died before he could discuss it with anyone. Pippin From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sat Apr 12 21:09:03 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:09:03 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 2 Post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182500 > > zgirnius: > > For this reason, I presume he never used a Patronus to communicate > with the Order. We never see him do so. In OotP, he could have left the > > school grounds to Apparate to 12 GP in person. > Pippin: > As a general rule, I agree. But that night the patronus could have > delivered its message to Tonks, who would not have known its > significance, or directly to Sirius, who died before he could discuss > it with anyone. zgirnius: It could have, but I do not believe that it did. Snape could not count on anyone other than Sirius taking the first message (why would Tonks be there on a workday afternoon?), and he could not count on Sirius dying, since Snape had no reason to believe Sirius would shortly be getting himself killed. It seems to me that even Albus was unaware of the form taken by Snape's Patronus, so I really do not think he used it to send messages to anyone. From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 04:35:24 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 04:35:24 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182501 > >>Carol: > > It seems that the DEs were formidable only when they had a > leader... Betsy Hp: For me, the DEs seemed more formidable until I actually *met* them. That's the whole problem. I look at Voldemort, I look at the DEs, and I can't imagine them getting anywhere with anything, let alone taking over a nation. > >>Carol: > I'm not sure what you mean about what happened with Regulus spelling > hid doom. > Betsy Hp: In trying to figure out "how the WW works", I had the working idea that old families meant something. That they had power and influence (it's the only thing Draco had going for him, for example). But if that were the case, than Voldemort killing off the last of an old family like the Blacks (and we're given the impression that the Blacks were of the oldest and most powerful) would cause him to lose some power. But it didn't make a blip. I suppose there's some sort of way to force a logic on the situation (make up unnamed families, determine Sirius didn't know what he was talking about regarding his brother or his family's status, etc) but I can't be bothered. So, for me, Voldemort's earlier victories are pasted on. He arrived a blatant destroyer and for some odd reason the WW caved. > >>Carol: > > And I really don't see why you think that finding Voldie and > bringing him down is so easy. > Betsy Hp: Because throughout history men with vast more intelligence, cunning, and charisma have been brought down. JKR didn't show me any reason for Voldemort succeeding. > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But I also agree with both Alla and Carol that part of that > > nakedness is that he's an idiot without much in the way of special > > powers. > >>Carol responds: > Either my post was unclear or you're mistaking my meaning. I did not > say that Voldie was an idiot with no special powers. What I said, > or, at least, what I meant is not that Voldie doesn't have special > powers but that we see disappointingly little of those special > powers in DH. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, Alla pointed out that we never see him be clever (my interpertaion: he's an idiot), and you pointed out that we don't see him *use* any of his special powers (my interpertation: he's got no special powers). If JKR wanted us to see Voldemort as having special powers, she should have *shown* him having special powers when we finally see him in action. DH was Voldemort's swan song, and he's totally lame. > >>Carol responds: > But we don't see any fellow mob bosses because no one can match > Voldemort's Dark magic. > Betsy Hp: So what? They just crawled under rocks? Well, no. Because if they existed JKR needed to *show* them. Whether it was them going up against Voldemort and failing because their Dark didn't match his, or shown them crawling under rocks because of same. We don't see any fellow mob bosses because JKR didn't invent any. > >>Carol responds: > But where did you get the idea that these people were mob bosses? > Betsy Hp: That was me trying to place logic on the illogical. Though I think Arthur or Molly Weasley (or both?) dropped suggestions about backdoor deals and a corrupt Ministry. Which would require someone doing the deals and the corrupting. But it never really went anywhere. > >>Pippin: > The mass breakout from Azkaban and subsequent coverup mentioned in > DH could not have happened unless Pius Thicknesse was just the tip > of the iceberg. There had to have been massive subversion in the > Ministry spreading in secret all the time since Voldemort returned. > Betsy Hp: Well, so you say. But there's nothing in DH to show it. That's what I mean about JKR asking her readers to do all of her work for her. She just kind of handwaves the WW falling completely at Voldemort's feet and the Order wringing their hands by the sidelines (crying on Harry to save them) and any reader who wants to have the story makes sense has to fanwank a background we don't actually get. Some folks are cool with doing that. Others are cool with not worrying about it. For me, I don't like it. > >>Pippin: > It is demonstrated in canon that most people, even skilled Aurors, > can fall prey to Imperius. Gryffindors are as susceptible as anyone > else. > > It's only "handwaving" if you don't believe that mob psychology can > do what the Imperius does: make people do terrible things without > being able to stop themselves. Betsy Hp: Yes, Imperius was a cool weapon. And JKR could have done something with it. Gosh, using it as a stand in for mob psychology would have been an interesting way to go. Especially since Harry is the only person shown to naturally resist the curse. But she didn't. (Maybe it was too powerful and JKR couldn't figure out how to not have our favorite characters fall under its sway?) > >>Pippin: > Yep, that's what Snape is afraid of. He doesn't think anyone's > really been made responsible until they've been humiliated. Not, of > course, that he wants anyone to know what *he's* done. But it > never works on Harry -- he felt much more responsible for what he'd > done to Draco *before* Snape tried to make him feel bad about it. Betsy Hp: Oh. So Harry not thinking too much about the fact that he nearly killed a boy is *Snape's* fault? Handy. > >>Pippin: > I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. Unless a > person is very damaged he will want to do things correctly (as he's > been taught to perceive correctness), he will feel responsible for > the pain he perceives he has caused and he will want things to be > fair. If that basic moral circuitry is not in place, you're not > going to fix it by making people feel bad about themselves. > Betsy Hp: Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position. It's why being a Gryffindor is a free pass. A Gryffindor is innately moral and need not worry about any pesky "life lessons". And if you're not good enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry. It means Harry can slice a rival open or torture an enemy and not bother contemplating his actions. But! I don't like it. > >>Pippin: > *Enlightenment* -- understanding that in hurting anyone you hurt > yourself, in robbing anyone you rob yourself-- that's something more > than the basic moral understanding that most of us are born with (as > canon sees it) -- that's a choice. And therefore it can't be forced > on anyone. Betsy Hp: Where does canon show us this? When does Harry ever get enlightened? When does he learn torturing another is torturing himself, for example? > >>Pippin: > Enlightenment, as we see, carries with it the danger of > enlightenment bias, and like any other bias, it can be manipulated > to make people do terrible things. Canon suggests one should be > alert to this, but that it is still better to be enlightened and > biased against the unenlightened than the other way around. YMMV. Betsy Hp: Okay... It does. Self-rightousness is self-rightousness as far as I'm concerned. Though, again, I don't recall Harry getting enlightened. He ended the books as self-involved as ever as far as I could tell. Betsy Hp From moosiemlo at gmail.com Sun Apr 13 05:07:23 2008 From: moosiemlo at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:07:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2795713f0804122207n40a71355i7d2e8dfac43bb112@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182502 Betsy Hp: Well, so you say. But there's nothing in DH to show it. That's what I mean about JKR asking her readers to do all of her work for her. She just kind of handwaves the WW falling completely at Voldemort's feet and the Order wringing their hands by the sidelines (crying on Harry to save them) and any reader who wants to have the story makes sense has to fanwank a background we don't actually get. Lynda: Well, there was the MOM being taken over by the DE's and Voldemort. But maybe that doesn't count. It reminds me just a little of some real world historical events, though, like WW2 Germany and Italy. Of course that's purposeful on Rowling's part, but these things happen throughout history (Nero anyone?) and people do just stand by/support the person in power. I don't quite get your point about Rowling asking me as a reader to do her work for her: Wait! Yes I do!! Ficitonal books IMO are supposed to spark my imagination and let me think, not spoon feed me someone else's concepts until I'm in a stupor. Television is for that. What I expect a writer to do for me in his or her books is tell me a story that allows my imagination to work. Actually, well constructed tv shows and movies do the same thing. I don't need or want everything laid out for me in my reading. If I did, I would enjoy nonfiction, which for the most part I don't. It doesn't allow my imagination to work. There are exceptions to this generalization of course, but I simply didn't want Rowling (or any other writer of fiction) to give me a step by step treatise. Rowling did her job. She told me a story. My job IMO was to allow my imagination to take off and enjoy the story she gave me. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From zgirnius at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 05:52:09 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 05:52:09 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182503 > > >>Pippin: > > I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. Unless a > > person is very damaged he will want to do things correctly (as he's > > been taught to perceive correctness), he will feel responsible for > > the pain he perceives he has caused and he will want things to be > > fair. > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position. It's why being a > Gryffindor is a free pass. A Gryffindor is innately moral and need > not worry about any pesky "life lessons". And if you're not good > enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix > the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry. zgirnius: I believe what Pippin means is that morality is innate to *everyone*, except a damaged few, not merely to Gryffindors. (Only Voldemort for sure, among those we get to know reasonably well). And I agree this is Rowling's position. The key to understanding how I can say Slytherins in the series have innate morality, is that second part, about acting correctly as they have been taught to perceive correctness. Which is where a character like Regulus Black comes in. He has been taught to perceive what we would consider a rather warped idea of correctness, so be becomes a Death Eater and is not acting against his innate sense of morality (even while offending ours). He's a "right little hero" in his own eyes, actually. The callous treatment of Kreacher is what it takes for him to see/feel a conflict between correct action as he has understood it, and Voldemort's actions, that he ultimately resolves by choosing to die in an attempt to make Voldemort mortal. On the other extreme, we have Peter, who seems to have some idea his actions are despicable (hence, for example, that little, fatal hesitation in DH). But despite his perception of what it moral, he lacks the courage to act on it. This explains why Gryffindors are for the most part the heroes of this story, by the way. All the characters have innate morality, but this is a story of life-and-death struggle and danger...so the brave characters who can cope with life and death stuiff, come out looking best. In a drama about poor witches and wizards struggling to bring up families under difficult economic and social circumstances, sans terror and violence, we might see Hufflepuffs emerge as good guys, for their ability to stick with their families through thick and thin, and contributing their fair share to community self-help efforts. In a story about magical research, Ravenclaws might be the villains, their desire for new knowledge tempting them into Faustian bargains and away from their innate sense of which limits they should not cross in their research. And so on. But in a story about a war between a genocidal bloodist leader and his followers, and those who would oppose them, the featured good guys are going to be the brave folks, and the featured bad guys are going to be the pureblood believers. From s_ings at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 12:53:27 2008 From: s_ings at yahoo.com (Sheryll Townsend) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 12:53:27 -0000 Subject: Convention Alley 2008 Registration Update Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182504 Convention Alley 2008 is pleased to announce that we've done away with a registration increase. Everyone attending the event will pay the same rate of $300.00 (Canadian) for their registration. How did we manage this, you ask? Will there be a decrease in quality of what's offered to you? Not at all! We've simply done some basic rearranging - changed some programming rooms, found unexpected resources to cut our costs. We're just passing it on to you. Registration for Convention Alley 2008 includes all formal programming, keynote events and most of your meals, so register now for a weekend of all things Harry Potter. Come out and discuss the topics that have kept us going over the years, meet up with some old friends or make some new ones. Look forward to seeing you there! Sheryll Townsend Chair, CA 2008 Planning Committee From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 13:47:29 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:47:29 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182505 > >>Betsy Hp: > > Well, yes. But good writers think up a reason for good guy 1 > > failing. JKR doesn't, IMO. > >>Mike: > Here, I'm going to disagree with you ever so slightly. If Good Guy > 1 is DD, the reason DD couldn't stop him was acceptable imo. DD was > painted as the consumate "give em a second chance" guy. > > Combine that with DD's idiotic penchant for secrecy - which was > nontheless sold extremely well throughout the series - and you have > a reasonable excuse for why Good Guy 1 failed to stop Bad Guy A > early on, imo. Betsy Hp: I've been meaning to get to this point of yours, Mike, for days (*days*!) only I keep forgetting. Because yes, I totally agree JKR did a good job showing why Dumbledore failed when it came to Voldemort. [Aside: My issue with Dumbledore as a character is this sense I have that several of his weaknesses seem to not be perceived as such by JKR. And that she doesn't expect us, her readers, to see Dumbledore as so completely flawed. Mainly because Harry doesn't move beyond him. Again, a lack of growing up.] But! Dumbledore is famously outside the system. He rejects the Aurors, the Ministry, pretty much everyone who hasn't declared a personal loyalty to him (though he does keep his faithful as far out of the loop as he can). My problem is where were the regulars? Why did Crouch Sr. fail at stopping Voldemort? Why didn't the Aurors at the very least figure out the Tom Riddle connection? They're supposed to be the best of the WW's police force, and they'd have to be on the level of Keystone Cops to not pick up on at least *some* of Voldemort's weaknesses. I suspect we're supposed to decide that everyone kind of flailed at Voldemort's appearance (pretty much at the *moment* of his appearance) and fell desperately at Dumbledore's feet. And Dumbledore, being mad, decided to wait for a designated hero. But this does mean we need to look at the WW as an idiot world. Which I don't like. > >>Mike: > > But Arthur Weasley, to me, is the embodiment of the whole WW > problem with fighting a tyrant like Voldemort. Back in GoF, Arthur > oozed fear of anything Voldemort in explaining the way it was in > VW1. And Arthur, though typical of your average wizard, wasn't a > resistance fighter nor a soldier. He fell asleep on guard duty and > it almost cost him his life. That's the kind of mentality that > permeates the WW, with a few exceptions like Moody and Kingsley. > They aren't equipped with the mentality to fight the good fight, > nor the soldiering acumen to know what's important. > Why aren't they equipped? Because they are intellectually lazy. > Betsy Hp: Agreed. But the fact that Moody and Kingsley *put* Arthur on guard duty, the fact that Arthur has top billing in the resistance, means that Moody and Kingsley aren't really all that. (Hell, the "Three Amigos" did a better job preparing their civilian charges to stand up against a tyrant. And they were *actors*! ) For Voldemort to get as far as he did means that *everyone* opposing him were pretty much on the level of Arthur. As we see in DH, where pranking an office or two seems to be about the extent of the "resistance". > >>Mike: > I'm convinced that if Snape hadn't loved Lily, the evil side would > have won this war in VW1. Snape was one of the few intellectuals > that could have swayed the balance of power into Voldemort's camp. > Then again, a living James, Sirius and Lily all putting in an > earnest effort, may have countered Snape's serious mind. They at > least seemed to have the fortitude to stand up to Voldemort. Betsy Hp: I disagree there. James and Lily lost all my respect by failing to arm themselves. Sirius... it's hard to tell with him because we meet him when he's a broken wreck of a man. One assumes he was a tiny bit better back in the day, but we never see that day. He at least showed a wise lack of trust in Dumbledore (always a plus in my book) but not when we knew him. And Snape... God, the horror of his story. He was a dog in the end, not a man, unfortunately. The Snape in my head would have been excellent, but JKR's Snape? ::sigh:: There was no "there" there in the end. The facade of intellect, but no staying power. (JKR killed Snape in just about every way she could for me. Alas.) Betsy Hp (so eager to be off the road it's stopped being funny) From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 13 16:57:26 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 13 Apr 2008 16:57:26 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/13/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1208105846.12.77719.m48@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182506 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 13, 2008 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 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 13 19:19:23 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:19:23 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182507 Betsy Hp: Betsy Hp: > Yeah, Alla pointed out that we never see him be clever (my interpertaion: he's an idiot), and you pointed out that we don't see him *use* any of his special powers (my interpertation: he's got no special powers). If JKR wanted us to see Voldemort as having special powers, she should have *shown* him having special powers when we finally see him in action. DH was Voldemort's swan song, and he's totally lame. Carol responds: No special powers except a horrible, invasive sort of Legilimency (shown with gregorovitch); control of the horrible Nagini, whom he can cause to take over a dead woman's body; Parseltongue (used as part of his control of Nagini and, earlier, to control the Basilisk); telekinesis (never shown, unfortunately); and the power of possession (not shown in DH, admittedly); and the power of creating terrible potions (the two body-creating potions in GoF, which he directed Wormtail to create, and the potion that causes horrible suffering for Dumbledore in HBP and leads to Regulus's death in DH; the Horcruxes, which we see at work in CoS and DH. We also see him casting some spectacularly evil spells in his duel with DD in OoP. And, of course, he can create Inferi, as we saw in HBP. I don't think that Bathilda is an Inferius; I think she's a corpse inhabited and controlled by Horcrux!Nagini, a form of possession but using someone wh's already dead. Bathilda's body shows signs of Dark magic; we just don't know how she was killed, but it can't be AK, which leaves no mark.) What we don't see *in DH* is Voldie casting any extraordinary spells or using any extraordinary magic other than his invasive Legilimency and flying without a broom (which Snape can also do) and encasing Nagini in her bubble, even though he clearly *can* perform Dark magic. (The magic that creates Bathilda!Nagini and locket!Tom and the Inferi in the cave and the evil potion is all off-page and in the past, in some cases, long past.) Mostly, he AKs people and loses control. *That's* what's disappointing about DH!Voldie, IMO. He *does* have extraordinary powers, as indicated in the preceding paragraph (and in previous posts, which you've snipped). We just don't see much of them in DH because he's sidetracked by the quest for the Elder Wand. (I didn't list breaking into Dumbledore's grave, the last "great" action of the yew wand, because I don't think it's all that spectacular; any vandal could do it.) So I disagree that Voldemort has no special powers. He's had extraordinary powers since he was a boy. But I agree that we didn't see much of them (except for the Legilimency and Bathilda!Nagini and the locket Horcrux)--certainly nothing that would give Voldemort cause to think that the Elder Wand wasn't working for him. Just what "extraordinary magic" is he referring to that he performs with the Elder Wand despite its supposedly not working for him, or working only as well as the yew wand, which worked perfectly and was exactly suited to him (except when it came to to fighting Harry)? If we'd seen him trying to perform extraordinary magic with the Elder Wand and had seen it not working, fine. But that wand created Nagini's bubble and killed a lot of DEs after the cup Horcrux was stolen, so why does he think it's not working for him? I see no reason whatever for him to kill Snape except that JKR wants Snape to be killed by LV but not AK'd so that he can have that memorable death scene and give Harry those memories. > > Betsy Hp: > Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position. It's why being a Gryffindor is a free pass. A Gryffindor is innately moral and need not worry about any pesky "life lessons". And if you're not good enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry. It means Harry can slice a rival open or torture an enemy and not bother contemplating his actions. > Carol responds: Cormac mcLaggen and Romilda Vane and *Peter Pettigrew* are "innately moral"? The bullies James Potter and Sirius Black, whose action in attacking and publicly humiliating Severus Snape Harry twice disapproves of, are "innately moral"? (we're shown that Sirius is wrong and his Slytherin brother Regulus is right when it comes to the treatment and understanding of Kreacher.) I agree that Harry was more concerned with his punishment (and Ginny and missing Quidditch) than with nearly killing someone, but he does eventually come around to *saving* Draco and both *forgiving* and *publicly vindicating* Snape (unfortunately, too late for Snape to hear it). And I agree that he was wrong to torture Amycus, despicable as Amycus is, but that's before he forgoes vengeance and substitutes self-sacrifice. Carol, hoping that Betsy will notice my concessions and make one or two of her own :-) From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 14 00:03:35 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 00:03:35 -0000 Subject: someone else being right / James's parents Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182508 Pippin wrote in : << You're saying it would be *harder* for Harry to give himself up to someone who was right? >> That's canon, from HBP: << "And what about Percy?" asked Harry; the third-eldest Weasley brother had fallen out with the rest of the family. "Is he talking to your mum and dad again?" "Nope," said Ron. "But he knows your dad was right all along now about Voldemort being back..." "Dumbledore says people find it far easier to forgive others for being wrong than being right," said Hermione. >> Jayne wrote in : << what happened to James's parents. Were they alive when Harry was born ? Were they alive whan James and Lily died/ If so why did they not make contact with Harry or take him in to bring up? >> Many listies have already said that James's parents were no longer alive when James and Lily died, and that JKR said they just died because she wanted Harry to be an orphan. I'm just adding the canon. In PS/SS, Dumbledore told McGonagall: "I've come to bring Harry to his aunt and uncle. They're the only family he has left now." Dumbledore could have been lying, but he could not have deceived McGonagall by saying something she knew to be false. She wouldn't have known if Lily had lots of other Muggle relatives still alive; she might not have even known if Lily's parents were still alive; because she didn't know all that many people in the Muggle world. But she knew a ton of people in the wizarding world (such as Neville's Gran) and would have know if James's parents or a sibling were still alive. It was very convenient for Dumbledore that James's relatives were all dead, because of his determination to put Harry with Lily's relatives because of the blood protection magic. As listies have already said, Rowling said James's parents and Lily's parents died in boring ways just because Rowling wanted Harry to be an orphan. It's in : << MA: What about Harry's family ? his grandparents ? were they killed? JKR: No. This takes us into more mundane territory. As a writer, it was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone. So I rather ruthlessly disposed of his entire family apart from Aunt Petunia. I mean, James and Lily are massively important to the plot, of course, but the grandparents? No. And, because I do like my backstory: Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's parents were elderly, were getting on a little when he was born, which explains the only child, very pampered, had-him-late-in-life-so- he's-an-extra-treasure, as often happens, I think. They were old in wizarding terms, and they died. They succumbed to a wizarding illness. That's as far as it goes. There's nothing serious or sinister about those deaths. I just needed them out of the way so I killed them. >> That was quite disappointing to me, as I thought there should be a story to it, such as Voldemort trying to kill off all Potters. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 02:23:12 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:23:12 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182509 > 1. "Harry thought of A History of Magic;" ? have Hermione's habits > finally worn off on him? Niru writes: Yeah, I think so. And a good thing too! :) > 2. We've waited for seven books to get our first glimpse of the house > in Godric's Hollow. How satisfying was the scene where Harry finally > sees his family home? Niru writes: Somehow I didn't pay a lot of attention to that aspect. I think I was all agog about Bathilda and what secrets she may hold. Plus I don't I ever held great expectations of finding something in Harry's old house. All in all it was ok. > 3. "Bathilda" seems to be able to see Harry and Hermione beneath the > Invisibility Cloak. Does this mean that Nagini can see through > Cloaks? Does LV know they're there and communicates it to Nagini? > Clearly, someone is there, since the sign has risen out of the > ground, but how does LV!Nagini know where they're standing? Niru writes: Nagini could probably smell their presence. But I don't think LV knew they were there. In fact, wasn't it the other way around? Once they were in the house, didn't Nagini communicate it to him? Incidentally, how did she do that? (I don't have the book handy). Did he have to continuously poll her or something? > 4. As Harry and Hermione enter the house, the description of Bathilda > is actually a series of clues as to her state. Of course, we all have > the advantage of hindsight; did any of this set off alarms for you on > the first read? Niru writes: It was kind of spooky but I sort of agreed with Harry's thought that poor Bathilda needed some help. Only on the second read did the clues about her being dead stand out. > 5. Harry's locket is again alive; should he have guessed that > something was amiss by its behavior? Niru writes: He should have (and so should we have!). But I guess he (and we) were too eager to find the sword. > 6. How much of the mess in Bathilda's house do you suppose is really > the poor dear's own clutter and how much should have been a warning > to Harry and Hermione that something was terribly wrong? > > 7. Although the outcome of the visit was not what I expected (to say > the least), I felt the tension was built well in this scene, and I > was primed for some sort of surprise. What was your response to the > buildup? Did you speculate correctly on the surprise outcome? Niru writes: With most posters here. I thought the condition of the house was gross. I felt the tension build up but definitely did NOT expect what actually happened. At one point I actually wondered if Harry and Hermione might help clean up the house after getting the sword! :) > 8. This chapter contains one of the most grisly (if not THE most > grisly) scenes in the HP series. What was your initial reaction to > the ? er ? unveiling of Bathilda? Niru writes: Oh! THE most grisly scene of the series by far for me. It was worse than The Cave chapter of HBP and that was a scary, scary scene. And I had the misfortune to read both those chapters at midnight and couldn't sleep for a long time after that. Woe is me! Suffice it to say I haven't ventured to read Bathilda's Secret after dark again. :) > 9. Again, we finally get another scene we've been waiting to see for > seven books: the deaths of James and Lily Potter and Voldemort's > destruction. How did the scene live up to your expectations? What > did it elucidate that had been unclear previously? (I realize that > much of this has been discussed.) > > 10. Voldemort is a pathological liar, although we know parts of the > Potter death scene are true, thanks to Harry's Dementor memories. How > reliable are LV's memories of the fateful night in this case? Niru writes: Answering both at once. It lived up to my expectations. James's mad dash to face LV (without a wand too). And Lily's attempts to protect Harry... even throwing her arms up to shield him. It all fit. And they were really naive IMHO. They placed a lot of faith in their friends. Plus did anyone else think they were crazy/naive/trusting to leave their wands lying around? Harry would never have done something like that. (I don't mean that they were stupid... just that they were perhaps very young and maybe they panicked a bit and they really didn't expect to be found). And I think LV's memories are accurate. He doesn't know that Harry is tapping into him consciously or unconsciously at times. > 11. This chapter points up yet again one of JKR's themes: the > vicissitudes of friendship. Do you think Lily and James were too > trusting of the Fidelius charm, and they should have been armed > constantly? What was your reaction to the picture of DD and > Grindelwald arm in arm? Do you think Harry and Hermione's > relationship altered any as a result of the events of that night? Niru writes: As I said in the previous answer, I think James and Lily should probably have been armed at all times. It may not have done much good, but placing a little less faith the the Fidelius may have helped. I can't remember having any reaction to the picture of DD and Grindelwald. Was too busy being scared I suppose! :) The breaking of Harry's wand did place a certain strain on the friendship of Harry and Hermione. But in the end I don't think it really altered it... or perhaps more accurately their friendship wasn't weakened. - Niru From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 14 02:33:32 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:33:32 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182510 > Niru writes: > > As I said in the previous answer, I think James and Lily should > probably have been armed at all times. It may not have done much > good, but placing a little less faith the the Fidelius may have > helped. I can't remember having any reaction to the picture of DD > and Grindelwald. Was too busy being scared I suppose! :) The > breaking of Harry's wand did place a certain strain on the > friendship of Harry and Hermione. But in the end I don't think it > really altered it... or perhaps more accurately their friendship > wasn't weakened. Potioncat: Is there any canon about why the Potters were placed in hiding? What I mean is, why did James and Lily go into hiding? As I understand DD, he didn't tell them about the prophecy. And Lily begged LV to kill her, not Harry. It doesn't sound as if she knows Harry is the Chosen One. So I think the Potters thought they had been targetted by LV and went into hiding. Had they known that Harry was the target, I think they might have done things differently. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 03:14:46 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:14:46 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Re:_CHAPDISC:_Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows,_Chapter_17,_Bathilda=92s_Secret?= In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182511 > > Niru writes: > > > > As I said in the previous answer, I think James and Lily should > > probably have been armed at all times. It may not have done much > > good, but placing a little less faith the the Fidelius may have > > helped. I can't remember having any reaction to the picture of > > Potioncat: > Is there any canon about why the Potters were placed in hiding? What > I mean is, why did James and Lily go into hiding? As I understand DD, > he didn't tell them about the prophecy. And Lily begged LV to kill > her, not Harry. It doesn't sound as if she knows Harry is the Chosen > One. So I think the Potters thought they had been targetted by LV and > went into hiding. Had they known that Harry was the target, I think > they might have done things differently. Niru writes: You are right. There is no canon proof that James and Lily knew the prophecy. It may be inferred from canon that they went into hiding because Dumbledore asked them to go into hiding. However, it is anybody's guess whether Dumbledore told them about the prophecy. Knowing his penchant for keeping secrets, he probably didn't tell them. My guess would be that he told them they were in danger (and whether Harry was included in the "they" is once again anybody's guess) and needed to keep be kept out of sight and very, very safe. James and Lily would probably never had asked Dumbledore for clarification. If he told them, then that was that (again we have no concrete proof of this... just conjecture). - Niru From aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au Mon Apr 14 03:21:19 2008 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 03:21:19 -0000 Subject: Seven (nude) Potters (only 6 nude) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182512 > > > > Magpie: > > > I think Harry would feel ridiculous watching a dozen > > > > versions of himself in boxers, much less panties...and I > > doubt they'd need to change underwear anyway. > > > > > Susan > Hello everyone! This is my first post, ... > When the 7 Potters changed clothes, they just changed outer > garments to resemble Harry and throw DE's off the scent. > > "He felt like asking them to show a little more respect for his > privacy as they all began stripping off with impunity, clearly much > more at ease with displaying his body than they would have been > with their own." > > Of course Harry would have been embarassed showing arms and legs > and undies in front of everyone. > If I remember correctly, when they landed at the Burrow, there were > bags of their stuff that someone had brought along, so they could > have changed back. Am I not remembering correctly? > > Susan, having fun > aussie here: No-one mentions Mundungus ... Harry in Dung's boxers that probably had holes in them. Hermione probably wore a singlet, and Bill would have checked Fleur from top to bottom before going. The twins would have happily made Harry sweat ... While Ginny was waiting back at the Burrow to ask Tonks for all the juicy details. (That was why she got them to give a thorough inspection for tattoos - even though it was really Ron they were looking at) aussie (wondering if the twins kept some polyjuice and took hairs from some wedding guests) From leekaiwen at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 10:01:43 2008 From: leekaiwen at yahoo.com (Lee Kaiwen) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 18:01:43 +0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: someone else being right / James's parents In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48032B87.1010606@yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182513 Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) said on 14/04/2008 08:03: >> JKR: As a writer, it >> was more interesting, plot-wise, if Harry was completely alone.... >> Petunia and Lily's parents, normal Muggle death. James's >> parents ... nothing serious or sinister .... I just needed them >> out of the way so I killed them. >> > That was quite disappointing to me, as I thought there should be a > story to it, such as Voldemort trying to kill off all Potters. I think it's another missed opportunity. A better backstory on the Potter family could have disposed of the gparents *and* enriched the story. We certainly didn't need to read the Akallabeth to understand Aragorn, but he's a vastly richer character for the backstory. The Lord of the Rings is a great read even without knowing the story of Earendil, but knowing the backstory -- an absolutely fascinating tale in its own right -- suddenly invests Bilbo's simple throw-away line in "Many Meetings" about green stones and having the cheek to make verses about Earendil in the house of Elrond with so many layers of meaning. It's not necessary to know that Galadriel's grandfather was one of the first elves to awaken on the shores of Cuivenin at the dawn of the world, or that she is the last remaining elf in Middle-Earth who has seen the Undying Lands and talked with Elbereth face to face, but knowing it elevates her from just another elf to one of the most fascinating characters in all of LOTR. And when Tolkien comments that with her when she sailed at last away went the last living memory of the Elder Days, the poignancy of that moment still makes my eyes mist in a way they never would without the backstory to impregnate it. Sure, we don't need to know how Harry's family died. But imagine how much richer the story, how much more tragic Harry, could have been. CJ From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 14 11:37:00 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 11:37:00 -0000 Subject: someone else being right / James's parents In-Reply-To: <48032B87.1010606@yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182514 > CJ wrote: > I think it's another missed opportunity. A better backstory on the > Potter family could have disposed of the gparents *and* enriched the > story. Potioncat: That would be true if there was a back story, but there wasn't. If she had given us more information about the senior Potters, she would need to give us more about the Evans family. It would be harder to keep information about young Severus out of it. It's enough that Harry's parents were heroes of a sort. I don't think JKR wanted Harry to be from a long line of heroes. Or to know of a long line of grievances against LV. That would have made the Potter/LV battle more of a family feud. And we already had that with the Snape/Potter conflict. JKR anchored much of her plot to the DD and Snape arcs. James and Lily were the characters that things happened to, rather than the ones moving the story. So I can't imagine JKR would have had too much to say about their parents. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 19:16:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:16:11 -0000 Subject: James's parents' generation ( Was: someone else being right / James's parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182515 Potioncat: > That would be true if there was a back story, but there wasn't. If she had given us more information about the senior Potters, she would need to give us more about the Evans family. It would be harder to keep information about young Severus out of it. > JKR anchored much of her plot to the DD and Snape arcs. James and Lily were the characters that things happened to, rather than the ones moving the story. So I can't imagine JKR would have had too much to say about their parents. Carol responds: I agree with the last paragraph in particular, but I still think that the deaths of both sets of parents are a rather irritating little authorial convenience. JKR wanted them out of the way so that Harry would have no relatives except Petunia. Since she also killed off Sirius's parents (at least his mother gets page time as a drooling, screaming old madwoman in a portrait) and probably Severus's parents, too, since they're not mentioned after he goes to school, I think she could concentrate on Harry's and his parents' generations --specifically HRH, Draco, the Weasley and Malfoy families, the surviving Marauders, and Snape (Dumbledore being a major exception, several generations removed from any other important character). To return to JKR's killing off of Harry's grandparents' generation, Walburga Black and her husband, Orion, weren't really all that old if the Black family tapestry is accurate (sixty and fifty respectively at their deaths, and neither were James's parents if they were Charlus and Dorea (Black) Potter (she died at 57; he was probably about the same age--Sirius wouldn't have been able to spend much time with them since Mrs. P. died in 1977), but, oh, well. JKR isn't concerned with such matters. Or maybe she thinks that fifty-plus is "old," even for wizards? Can't be; how would she explain McGonagall, much less the Dumbledores and Madam Marchbanks, if that's the case? (I do hope that she revises the family tree to make the Potters, if those are James's parents, and Sirius's parents actually old--and to eliminate the teenage fathers--before putting it in her encyclopedia!) Sidenote: The tree shows links to a number of Pure-Blood familes, not just the Potters, Malfoys, and Lestranges, but the Longbottoms, the Crouches, the Prewetts (Molly Weasley's family), the McMillans (I thought it was Macmillan in the books, but I could be wrong), the Bulstrodes (which means that Sirius Black is related, if not very closely, to Millicent Bulstrode, a Slytherin girl in Harry's year), the Burkes (Caractacus Burke was the tight-fisted co-owner of Borgin and Burkes who gave Merope ten galleons for Slytherin's locket), the Yaxleys (the brutal-faced DE is a Yaxley), and the Rosiers (Evan Rosier, killed by Mad-Eye Moody after GH, was also a DE). Phineas Nigellus married a Flint (some distant relation of Marcus?) and Sirius's maternal grandmother was a Crabbe! I guess those last half-dozen connections, along with cousins Bellatrix and Narcissa, explain why Sirius doesn't like to look at the tapestry. At any rate, I find the connections more intriguing than the dates, which are probably, erm, in need of revision. However, what I really want to know (to return to the original topic of the Potters and Evanses) is how the Muggle Evanses, Petunia and all, got onto Platform 9 3/4 in Severus Snape's memory of himself and Lily at age eleven ("The Prince's Tale"). Carol, noting that Orion Black died in 1979, the same year as his younger son, Regulus, and wondering whether he died of grief (and BTW, shouldn't the year of Reggie's death be 1980 if it's "some fifteen years before" Harry looks at the tapestry in August 1995 in OoP?) From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 21:40:39 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:40:39 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: <2795713f0804122207n40a71355i7d2e8dfac43bb112@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182516 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > That's what I mean about JKR asking her readers to do all of her > > work for her. She just kind of handwaves the WW falling > > completely at Voldemort's feet... > >>Lynda: > Well, there was the MOM being taken over by the DE's and Voldemort. > But maybe that doesn't count. Betsy Hp: It's doesn't count as the "how" for me because I see it more as the "what". The MoM fell to Voldemort and the DE's, yes. But I see no reason for it to have fallen so easily. (Far more easily, IMO, than any similiar RL event JKR may have meant to evoke.) > >>Lynda: > > I don't quite get your point about Rowling asking me as a reader to > do her work for her: Wait! Yes I do!! Ficitonal books IMO are > supposed to spark my imagination and let me think, not spoon feed > me someone else's concepts until I'm in a stupor. > Betsy Hp: I agree that good works of fiction should not spoon feed. But JKR failed at sparking my imagination by straining it too far. Of course it's all a personal judgement call, but the MoM fell with (IMO) unbelievable ease. For it to work in my head I have to *undo* what JKR has written and create a whole lot of background events that not only aren't alluded to, they actively work against what her actual characters are doing. Which is my point. JKR isn't sparking my imagination. She's stomping all over it with her own *lack* of imagination. (At least, in my opinion.) Frankly, since she was so obviously uninterested in the process, I'm not sure why she bothered having Voldemort actually take over the WW. It didn't add anything to Harry's part in the story, and it was Harry's part she was obviously more interested in. At least, that's how it read to me. > >>Pippin: > > I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. > > > >>Betsy Hp: > > Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position. It's why being a > > Gryffindor is a free pass. A Gryffindor is innately moral and need > > not worry about any pesky "life lessons". And if you're not good > > enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix > > the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry. > >>zgirnius: > I believe what Pippin means is that morality is innate to > *everyone*, except a damaged few, not merely to Gryffindors. (Only > Voldemort for sure, among those we get to know reasonably well). > And I agree this is Rowling's position. Betsy Hp: The reason I have a hard time seeing JKR's version of "innate morality" being for everyone in her universe is that a Gryffindor and a not-Gryffindor may take the same action, and that action is judged differently within the books. For example: Fred (or George) may beat up a younger boy for giving him cheek. And it doesn't have a bearing on Fred's innate morality. We're not meant to judge Fred for it. Dudley (a non-Gryffindor) does the same thing, and it's something we as readers are expected to judge Dudley's (lack of) morality by. Harry may go outside the rules to achieve his goal (a good potions grade) and it doesn't say anything about his moral standing. If Draco goes outside the rules to achieve *his* goal (win a quiddich match), it says something negative about his moral standing. I strongly suspect the reason for this is what you say here: > >>zgirnius: > > This explains why Gryffindors are for the most part the heroes of > this story, by the way. All the characters have innate morality, but > this is a story of life-and-death struggle and danger...so the brave > characters who can cope with life and death stuiff, come out looking > best. > Betsy Hp: Bravery is the end all, be all of JKR's moral ladder of worth in this universe. And Gryffindors (being the house of the brave) are naturally on top. Sure some may screw up and betray their bravery (I think JKR would see Peter as an example here), but they are all at least starting out with the right attitude. Anyone not-Gryffindor is missing that key component and so starting out life on the wrong foot. And it takes a great deal of scrambling and most likely a "heroic death" to make up for that lack. But it is a lack and it means a not-Gryffindor will never stand equal with a Gryffindor. I think the best that can be a hoped for is a "very nearly there". > >>Carol: > > *That's* what's disappointing about DH!Voldie, IMO. He *does* have > extraordinary powers, as indicated in the preceding paragraph (and > in previous posts, which you've snipped). We just don't see much of > them in DH because he's sidetracked by the quest for the Elder > Wand. Betsy Hp: Just to be clear, I've read what I've snipped. You aren't being ignored. But I disagree that you're providing examples of special powers on Voldemort's part. He's vicious and blunt and will use the magic all wizards have to the fullest extent of his ability, no matter what they may do to his victims. But there's not something so uniquely different about his powers that it explains why the WW had no choice but to cave to his appearance and await a "special hero" to save them. For example: Any wizard willing to create a horcrux and put their piece of soul into an animal will control that animal as well as Voldemort controlled his snake. So his control of Nagini isn't what I'd term a special power. Heck, even parsel tongue became more mundane when Ron was able to use it to get into Slytherin's lair. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I'd say "special powers" were ever really alluded to throughout the series. I got the sense it was more Voldemort's charm, charisma and cunning (ha! how wrong was I?) and his willingness to be as vicious as he needed to be that got him ahead. As of DH, I think only his viciousness remained as a real part of his nature. Which I found actually lessened him as a villain. He was reduced to a thug, more willing to be a thug than all the thugs surrounding him. Which, yes, thugs can be scary but it doesn't take all that much to take them down. And they rarely (if ever? I can't think of any) achieve world domination. > >>Carol, hoping that Betsy will notice my concessions and make one > or two of her own :-) Betsy Hp: The problem is, I'm explaining (or trying to, anyway ) what didn't work for me. So it's not the sort of discussion that I think lends itself to concessions. (At least, not the "suspension of disbelief" part. The "what is the working moral structure of this universe" discussion certainly lends itself to more give and take.) Betsy Hp (happy to be home, *finally*!) From dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 19:04:24 2008 From: dukelover_0890 at yahoo.com (dukelover_0890) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:04:24 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Harry related? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182517 I was thinking that Harry and Voldemort were related through the brothers of the Deathly Hollows. The stone was passed down to the Gaunts and the cloak was passed down to Harry. Since it went through the family, doesn't that make them related in a far kinda sorta way. dukelover_0890 From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 23:13:50 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:13:50 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182518 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 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore The original chapter discussion leader had to bow out reviewing this chapter. So we've asked a guest reviewer to step in. Originally reluctant to do so, Harry Potter has agreed to take himself back to this time and place and tell us what was going on his mind and where he thought things were heading at Christmas time, 1997. Without further ado, heeeere's Harry: _____________________________________________________ "What was I feeling? I felt naked, my wand was broken. My beautiful Phoenix core wand that had saved my life twice against Voldemort. The second time on its own. I felt losing my wand was like losing all my magic. Now what do I do?" "I have at least figured one thing out, Dumbledore was a jerk! Hermione and I talked ourselves into visiting Godric's Hollow because we were sure Dumbledore had a plan for us, that we just had to find it. But that wasn't the case. If there was a plan, what was it, how were we supposed to follow some secret untold plan with NO clues? And he left us nothing, even that stupid snitch is worthless. Yeah, we could use the sword, but he didn't even have the foresight to figure out how to get that to us." "Now Voldemort had the picture of the merry-faced thief. He'd be able to take the next step in whatever the quest he was on, while Hermione and I are stuck on this camping trip from hell. At least Hermione had the temerity to *borrow* Batty's copy of Rita's book. Now I'll find out some of those secrets that Dumbledore couldn't be bothered to explain to me." "The first secret I discover, Albus Dumbledore was a boyhood friend of Gellert Grindelwald. WHAT? The very same Dark Wizard he was famous for defeating? Can this be true? What kind of a two-faced hypocrite was he?" "Sure, Rita Skeeter loves to take her liberties with the truth. But there Dumbledore was in that picture, laughing it up with Grindelwald. And there was that letter, in Dumbledore's hand, extolling the virtue of conquering the Muggle world FOR THE GREATER GOOD. The phrase that would become Grindelwald's mantra. Even Rita must start with a grain of truth, and it seems she had much more than a grain here." "It took his sister's death to straighten him out. But if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore have changed his ways? Before I read this story, I would have had no doubt, the answer would be yes. Now, I'm not sure." "And what's with his screwy brother and the goat dung?" "When Hermione tries to plead youthfulness on Dumbledore's behalf, I'm not buying it. Look at what he was doing compared to what we are doing at the same age. So Dumbledore lost his parents, so what? At least he had siblings, what did I have? The Dursleys?!" "Hermione claims he changed. He became the champion of Muggle rights, and fought against Dark Wizards for the rest of his life. Though he did wait for five long years from the time Grindelwald started his reign of terror before he could bring himself to confront him. Why the delay? I have no answer for that either." "Am I just mad because Dumbledore didn't reveal the worst of himself to me, that I had to read it in a posthumous biopic from Rita Skeeter? Maybe I am! But the fact remains, Dumbledore NEVER trusted me with the whole truth. And look where it's led to, wandering in the wilderness, no explanations, no plan. I'm supposed to blindly trust a man that shared more with Gellert Grindelwald than he EVER did with me?" "My world is collapsing in on me. Ron is gone and now that the worst about Dumbledore has been revealed, it's worse than I could have imagined. If the man wasn't already dead, I'd strangle him myself, with my bare hands." _________________________________________________________ Thank you Harry, for that unique insight. We now turn it over to our moderator for a question and answer session. I'm sorry, Harry won't be able to stay to answer these questions, you'll have to do your best on your own. QUESTIONS: 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year and a half ago. 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from Harry? Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this discussion, shall we?) 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, especially his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped Harry? 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part of her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable boundaries? 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own interpretation? 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the circumstances that led to her death to occur? 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily chosen his brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something that showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been? 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG? Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter? 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike Gray when you need him? 11. Rita had a lot more to say in her book, stuff that Harry wasn't that interested in. Was there anything in there that particularly interested you? Like the quotes from "Dogbreath" Doge, Enid Smeek, or Bathilda Bagshot, including how she got the quotes out of Batty (veritiserum)? Or the insinuations Rita made for the reason behind the "coffin-side brawl"? ~ Mike and Sherry aka Phlytie and Blinky Elves ------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE: For more information on HPfGU's chapter discussions, please see "HPfGU DH Chapter Discussions" at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database Next Chapter Discussion, Chapter 19, The Silver Doe, April 28 From bboyminn at yahoo.com Mon Apr 14 23:38:16 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:38:16 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Harry related? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182519 --- "dukelover_0890" wrote: > > I was thinking that Harry and Voldemort were related through the > brothers of the Deathly Hollows. The stone was passed down to the > Gaunts and the cloak was passed down to Harry. Since it went through > the family, doesn't that make them related in a far kinda sorta way. > > dukelover_0890 > bboyminn: Who you are related to is a very complex thing. Hillary Clinton is related to Angalina Jolie, and I think Barack Obama is related to Brad Pit, or some other equally absurd combination like that. I personally can trace my ancestry back to Lyman Hall, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independance and the first governor of Georgia. Though, trust me, it is a very convoluted path. We know that Harry is related to the Peverell's and Gaunt (Tom Riddle's mother) is related to the Peverell, but you will notice that neither Harry or Tom are named Peverell or Slytherin. So we must assume that some where along the way, whatever lineage there is has passed to the mother's side. So, while both Potter and Gaunt must have somewhere along the way have had some hereditary rights, we do not necessarily know that their is a direct 'blood' path. In other words, both Potter and Gaunt may be 'in-laws', but not blood related. As a side note, I would like to say that while I am mostly Norwegian, a family member has recently trace my father's side back to Gravesend, Kent, England (1628). Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 00:19:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 00:19:33 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182520 Carol earlier: > > > > *That's* what's disappointing about DH!Voldie, IMO. He *does* have extraordinary powers, as indicated in the preceding paragraph (and in previous posts, which you've snipped). We just don't see much of them in DH because he's sidetracked by the quest for the Elder Wand. > > Betsy Hp: > Just to be clear, I've read what I've snipped. You aren't being ignored. But I disagree that you're providing examples of special powers on Voldemort's part. He's vicious and blunt and will use the magic all wizards have to the fullest extent of his ability, no matter what they may do to his victims. But there's not something so uniquely different about his powers that it explains why the WW had no choice but to cave to his appearance and await a "special hero" to save them. > > For example: Any wizard willing to create a horcrux and put their piece of soul into an animal will control that animal as well as Voldemort controlled his snake. So his control of Nagini isn't what I'd term a special power. Heck, even parsel tongue became more mundane when Ron was able to use it to get into Slytherin's lair. > > To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I'd say "special powers" were ever really alluded to throughout the series. Carol responds: Oh, dear. You don't recall Voldemort's "special powers" being alluded to in canon? guess I'd better get out the books and start quoting, then. Let's start with possession. The very first time we see Voldemort, not counting the unicorn-blood-drinking figure in the forbidden forest who is probably Quirrell, he's sticking out of the back of Quirrell's head: "Harry would have screamed, but he couldn't make a sound. Where there should have been a back to quirrell's head, there was a face, the most terrible face Harry had ever seen. It was chalk white with glaring red eyes and slits for nostrils, like a snake. . . . "See what I have become?' the face said. 'Mere shadow and vapor. . . I have form only when I can share another's body. . . but there have always been those willing to let me into their hearts and minds" (SS Am. ed. 293). I doubt very much that Quirrell *willingly* let Voldemort into his "heart and mind." He says himself that his "master" possessed him as a punishment to control him more closely. "Sometimes," says Quirrell, "I find it hard to obey my master's instructions. He is a great wizard and I am weak. He has had to be very hard on me. He does not forgive mistakes easily. When I failed to steal the stone from Gringotts [h]e punished me . . . decided he would have to keep a closer watch on me" (290-91). The very look of Voldemort is evil and monstrous, frightening in itself, as is his ruthlessness. But wizards armed with wands, especially those less weak and naive than Quirrell seems to have been, are unlikely to be terrified of a Dark Wizard unless he's obviously more powerful than they are. And Voldemort (who has been reduced to vapor rather than being killed) even without a wand or even a body is a scary figure who can possess both animals and snakes. He has no body of his own, yet he can make Quirrell (who both fears and admires him) obey him through a combination of threats and pain even before he controls him (as he later controls Nagini) by possessing him. In CoS, we see that as a boy of sixteen, he created a diary that can possess the reader, enabling that person to speak Parseltongue so that the memory in the diary (really a soul bit) can control the Basilisk, which the real Tom Riddle used to murder Moaning Myrtle. As if that's not enough, Diary!Tom causes Ginny to enter the CoS herself, after writing what her own epitaph on the wall, and very nearly takes her soul, turning the memory of himself into a second Tom Riddle. He survives in the interim between leaving Quirrell's body and being made a fetal form (through Dark magic we don't see the likes of elsewhere) by possessing snakes and other small animals. Presumably, he did the same thing between GH and the encounter with Wormtail. He is possessing Nagini when she nearly kills Mr. Weasley, and we can see just how closely she is controlled. Harry, of course, thinks he's the snake, so read "Nagini" for "Harry" and "she" for "he": "Harry longed to bite the man . . . but he must master the impulse [Voldemort's will controlling Nagini's] . . . he had more important work to do . Harry saw a wand withdrawn from a belt . . . . He had no choice . . . He reared high from the floor and struck" OoP Am. ed. 463). Nagini would not have bitten Mr. Weasley had Voldemort continued to restrain her, just as she doesn't bite Snape or eat Charity Burbage until she's ordered to do so or receives permission. As Dumbledore says, "he [Voldemort] seems to have an unusual amount of control over her, even for a Parselmouth" (HBP 507). I can think of no other wizard in the books who can possess either humans or animals. Voldemort can do both. I can't go on at this length about other powers, but Parseltongue, too, is presented as a highly unusual power, associated, fairly or unfairly, with Dark Wizards, especially Salazar Slytherin. Harry says that lots of people in Hogwarts can probably do it and Ron responds, "Oh, no, they ca't. It's not a very common gift" (Cos Am. ed. 196). The Hufflepuffs suspect Harry of being the Heir of Slytherin because he can speak it (and Tom Riddle regarded his ability to speak it, and consequently to open the CoS and control the Basilisk, as proof of the same thing--correctly, in his case). Ernie tells Hannah, "He's a Parselmouth. Everyone knows that's the mark of a Dark wizard. Have you ever heard of a decent one who could talk to snakes? They called Slytherin himself Serpent-tongue" (199). So that ability in itself would cause people to be afraid of Voldemort even if they didn't know that he had opened the CoS as a boy and could use the Basilisk to kill people without being in danger from it himself. (We see diary!Tom summoning it from its hiding place; it doesn't come until he calls it and it obeys only him.) Dumbledore says to Harry, "You can speak Parseltongue, Harry, because Lord Voldemort can speak Parseltongue. Unless I'm much mistaken, he transferred some of his own powers to you the night he gave you that scar" (333). So Harry and Voldemort are the only two wizards, not counting possessed!Ginny, who can open the Chamber of Secrets because they share this rare power. Only Riddle!Voldemort can control the Basilisk, but the other students, especially the Hufflepuffs, suspect Harry of controlling the monster because, like Slytherin and Voldemort, he can speak to snakes. (Ron can't, of course. He can only imitate the word for "open." Had the Basilisk still been alive and roaming the CoS, Ron would have been dead, and Hermione with him.) But Dumbledore speaks of "powers," not "power." The only other power Of Voldemort's that Harry has (unless the ability to resist the Imperius Curse is somehow related to the soul bit) is the ability to see into LV's mind through the scar, rather like Voldemort's formidable Legilimency (but, of course, he can't perform Legilimency in the normal way on anyone else). Snape tells Harry in the Occlumency lessons, " those who have mastered Legilimency are able, under certain conditions, to delve into the minds of their victims and to interpret their findings correctly. the dark Lord, for instance, almost always knows when somebody is lying to him. Only those skilled at Occlumency are able to shut down those feelings and memories that contradict the lie, and so utter falsehoods in his presence without detection" (OoP Am. ed. 531). Later, Snape speaks of Voldemort to Bellatrix as "the most accomplished Legilimens the world has ever seen" (HBP Am. ed. 26). Snape could, of course, be exaggerating since he certainly doesn't want Bellatrix to know that hr really has "hoodwinked" the Dark Lord through his "superb" Occlumency, but DH shows just how formidable and invasive Voldemort's Legilimency is (as if what he did to Bertha, and to Morfin and Hokey, weren't sufficient): "'Do not lie to Lord Voldemort, Gregorovitch. He knows. . . . He always knows.' "The hanging man's pupils were wide, dilated with fear, and they seemed to swell, bigger and bigger until their blackness swallowed Harry whole-- "And now Harry was hurrying along a dark corridor in stout little Gregorovitch's wake Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182521 Niru writes: Before I get on to the answers, I must say that was a most original and entertaining summary. :-) > QUESTIONS: > > 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this > worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year > and a half ago. Niru writes: Yes. In OotP his rage was more grief at losing Sirius and I believe Dumbledore bore the brunt of Harry venting his grief. In this case Harry is pretty disillusioned with Dumbledore himself. > 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole > prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you > everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? Niru writes: No, he did not. At that time he didn't even confide his suspicions about the Horcruxes not to mention Hallows. > 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole > truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was > he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from Harry? > Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront > Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this > discussion, shall we?) Niru writes: Ah! It is pretty hard to answer this without bringing in Harry! Horcrux. Anyway... Harry is right about Dumbledore not trusting him enough. For example, what about Snape? Harry has asked many times about Dumbledore's trust in Snape (so have others but they don't matter so much). Agreed that Dumbledore had promised Snape never to reveal his true loyalties. But couldn't he have convinced Snape to make an exception for Harry? Or made the exception himself? Pretty lucky that Harry was there when Snape died and was good enough to actually go to his side (I'd have walked off without looking back). Also fairly lucky that he went ahead to look at the memories. What if this hadn't happened and Snape had showed up at Harry's doorstep with his story about his - Snape's - love for Lily and the agreement to euthanize Dumbledore. Would Harry have believed him? Would he have even been willing to listen? I think Dumbledore took a big gamble there. > 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, especially > his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD > didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped > Harry? Niru writes: I don't think Harry had a RIGHT per se. That way nobody has a RIGHT to know anybody else's past. But it may have helped if he had known about Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald. For the only reason that he would have trusted Dumbledore more. In the end Harry did trust Dumbledore's judgement but he would probably have spent less time disillusioned and could have been spared some heartache if he'd known some of these things about Dumbledore upfront. > 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part of > her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, > but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning > the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable > boundaries? Niru writes: Rita being Rita is sitting somewhere between adorning the truth a little and stretching it beyond acceptable boundaries. > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore > changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's > interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own > interpretation? Niru writes: Dumbledore changed. I think he even rejected his own interpretation as he had put it to Grindelwald. When Aberforth asked Harry about whether he (Harry) is sure that he's not being sacrificed "for the greater good", I confess I had doubts. But, in the end, Dumbledore did try his best to make sure that the outcome was not only "for the greater good" but also for Harry's. > 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to > Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke > his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the > circumstances that led to her death to occur? Niru writes: Do you mean in the circumstances of how she died? Or what happened to her when she was six (or seven)? I'm not sure how she died but Albus was taking the blame for allowing the circumstances that led to her death. > 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore > have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily chosen his > brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something that > showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been? Niru writes: Yes, I think Dumbledore would have changed his ways. Albus would have changed and chosen his brother when he saw Grindelwald using the cruciatus curse on Aberforth. > 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with > Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate > that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his > mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG? > Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter? Niru writes: no, I did not think Dumbledore was in love. It looked like a friendship, like a meeting of great minds. > 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike > Gray when you need him? Niru writes: :-) > 11. Rita had a lot more to say in her book, stuff that Harry wasn't > that interested in. Was there anything in there that particularly > interested you? Like the quotes from "Dogbreath" Doge, Enid Smeek, or > Bathilda Bagshot, including how she got the quotes out of Batty > (veritiserum)? Or the insinuations Rita made for the reason behind > the "coffin-side brawl"? Niru writes: All the usual toxic Rita Skeeter stuff. Nope. Not interesting. Niru writes: On another note, this chapter had one of the most touching scenes between Harry and Hermione when she lightly brushes his head on her way back to tent. Harry does acknowledge the gesture to himself, if not to her. He does need his friends by his side and it is good to have friends like Hermione (and Ron). - Niru From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 01:50:26 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:50:26 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182522 Mike and Sherry, this was brilliant summary. I am stealing your idea for Dumbledore in heaven chapter ;) QUESTIONS: 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year and a half ago. Alla: Well, Harry is not throwing things around, but I still think it is worse. "Some inner certainty had crashed down inside him; it was exactly as he felt after Ron left. He had trusted Dumbledore, believed him to be the embodiment of goodness and wisdom. All was ashes; how much more could he lose? Ron. Dumbledore, the phoenix wand " Alla: Harry is not just feeling left out, he feels betrayed and I think comparison with Ron also means that he is hurt even more than in OOP. 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? Alla: You know the answer to that heheh ? of course not. 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from Harry? Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this discussion, shall we?) Alla: Erm if we leave out the soul bit part I am just not sure how we can say that Harry had all information to confront Voldemort. 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, especially his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped Harry? Alla: I will be the first person to smack Dumbledore for hiding things from Harry, you know? But I have to answer no he did not have a right to know that. I think Harry had an absolute right to know EVERYTHING that would have helped him to fight Voldemort and also he had an absolute right to know everything related to his past. To me that mean that Dumbledore should have disclosed the prophecy, the eavesdropper, yes that little part of Voldy in Harry, the tiny thing that Dumbledore took away cloak from James and James did NOT leave it with Dumbledore because he wanted to, but because Dumbledore asked him, all that stuff. But I do not see how the information about Dumbledore's friendship with Grindelwald a) would have helped Harry to fight Voldemort or b) had any relation to Harry's past personally. I think the information would have helped to strengthen the bond between Dumbledore and Harry, absolutely, but I do not think that Dumbledore had any obligation to share it, no. But don't worry I think he did not share SO MUCH of what he had to share, that I would be mad at him forever probably LOL. 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part of her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable boundaries? Alla: Actually I do not think Rita was making up all that much or almost nothing. I mean for example take Ariana's death, she is not claiming that she KNOWS how Ariana died, didn't she? She gives part of the story that she learns, speculates some and leaves it for the reader to speculate. And boy is she close to the truth or what? "And how did the mysterious Ariana die? Was she the inadvertent victim of some Dark rite? Did she stumble across something she ought not to have done, as the two young men sat practicing for their attempt at glory and domination? Is it possible that Ariana Dumbledore was the first person to die "for the greater good"?" ? p.293, brit.ed. Alla: I mean, it is not exact, but we can say that Ariana DID die because of their desire for glory and domination, didn't she? I am telling you this IS the chapter after which I at least got some respect for Rita Skeeter. 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own interpretation? Alla: LOLOLOLOL. I think my answer would be obvious too as well. NO I do not believe that Dumbledore ever changed in a sense that he rejected his own interpretation. I think this is the slogan according to which Dumbledore lived his life up till his death. When Harry came into his life, this slogan began to be in conflict with Dumbledore's growing affection for Harry, but he was still carrying this slogan, IMO. I mean, it is for the greater good that Harry will be placed with Dursleys, right? It is for the greater good that Dumbledore would not check on him once for eleven years. Yes, all for the greater good. It is also for the greater good that it is perfectly Okay to betray your closest comrades to the enemy. Oh boy I hate this phrase or what? And yes, I know that Harry sacrificed himself for the greater good too. At least he was not asking anybody else to sacrifice themselves. 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the circumstances that led to her death to occur? Alla: Well, personally I believe and always did that Aberforth's curse hit her. Yes, I think Albus took blame because he felt he allowed 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily chosen his brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something that showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been? Alla: Since I believe that Albus was protecting his brother, I think he did love him, I have no idea though if he would have chosen him over Gellert. I love Aberfoth. ~ Mike and Sherry aka Phlytie and Blinky Elves Alla: THANK YOU, that was supercool. From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 01:56:53 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 01:56:53 -0000 Subject: Depression in HP characters? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182523 > Potioncat wrote: > > > On some level, I think this explains both Tonks and Merope. It also > explains the very important theme of motherly love. > Niru writes: Merope was depressed. We are told (indirectly) that she couldn't even live for the sake of her son. I'd be more willing to believe that there was an actual physical reason for her death rather than she just willed herself dead. But does the fact that she lived longed enough to give Voldemort life count? Her depression was probably bad enough for her to not much care if she lived to care for him and love him and see him grow up (of course if there was a physical reason for her death, her will to live may not have made much difference). If she had lived, would Tom have become Voldemort? Tonks was depressed in HBP. She only came out of it when Remus "saw the light" so to speak and got together with her. I will probably wonder forever why she left baby Teddy and ran off into battle. Did her love for Remus compel such a move? Did she feel obligated to fight because she was an Auror? Or did she run off because she was determined to do everything to try and make sure Teddy grew up in a better world? Or was it post-natal depression that spurred such a decision? - Niru From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Tue Apr 15 02:32:51 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2008 21:32:51 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore References: Message-ID: <003c01c89ea1$1ba46120$29ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182524 > Without further ado, heeeere's Harry: Great summary!!! I loved it. > 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this > worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year > and a half ago. As has been noted, back at the end of OoP, Harry was devastated by Sirius's death, and angry mostly with himself, feeling that he was at least in part responsible. So, he projected his anger on others, especially Dumbledore and Snape. This time he is hurt and angry with Dumbledore. He (and I) can't understand why Dumbledore didn't tell him much more than he did, or give him guidance. > 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole > prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you > everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? NO!!! > 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole > truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was > he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from > Harry? > Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront > Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this > discussion, shall we?) There is so much that Dumbledore should have told Harry. One small example, Dumbledore never even told Harry the story of finding the ring, etc., although he seemed to spend much of HBP in telling Harry, "I'll tell you that later." No plan, no guidance, just leave things to chance and Harry's instinct. > 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, > especially > his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD > didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped > Harry? No, this is the one thing that I don't think Harry had the "right" to know from Dumbledore. It was personal to Dumbledore. However, there were lots of things personal to Harry or related to Horcrux's, etc. that Dumbledore should have told. > 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part > of > her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, > but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning > the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable > boundaries? I tend to think that the part of the book we read was the part where Rita was the closest to the truth, although I am not sure she knew it. She was going with the most sensational explanation she could come up with for everything. It's just in this one area where the truth was as sensational as anything Rita and the "Quick Quotes Quill" could come up with. > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore > changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's > interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own > interpretation? I think he gave up the complete domination of the Muggle world by Wizards, "for the greater good". However, he still thought that he should act for the "greater good", and manipulate others to that end as well. (Or to quote a Star Trek movie "The good of the many out weighs the good of the few, or the one." However, the question is, do the few or the one get to decide themselves, or do they get drafted?) Jerri From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 15 03:31:23 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:31:23 -0000 Subject: James's parents' generation ( Was: someone else being right / James's parents) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182525 > Carol responds: > > I agree with the last paragraph in particular, but I still think that > the deaths of both sets of parents are a rather irritating little > authorial convenience. Potioncat: Well, yes. But would this have seemed different if we had no contact with JKR? We know she has detailed backstories for characters we hardly ever see, so we perhaps expect something more for Harry's grandparents. But if the main character is an orphan, the older generations have to be quick about dying. Carol: > To return to JKR's killing off of Harry's grandparents' generation, > Walburga Black and her husband, Orion, weren't really all that old if > the Black family tapestry is accurate (sixty and fifty respectively at > their deaths, and neither were James's parents if they were Charlus > and Dorea (Black) Potter (she died at 57; he was probably about the > same age--Sirius wouldn't have been able to spend much time with them > since Mrs. P. died in 1977), but, oh, well. Potioncat: I don't think Dorea Black is James's mother. For one thing, you'd think Sirius would have revealed that relationship when he informed Harry how closely he was connected to the Weasleys. (And I consider 57 rather young to die.) I would like to know more about Snape's family. I suspect it's ever so much more interesting than the Potters. Carol: At any rate, > I find the connections more intriguing than the dates, which are > probably, erm, in need of revision. Potioncat: I agree! I thought the family tree was intriguing, and was very disappointed that nothing came of it. >Carol: > However, what I really want to know (to return to the original topic > of the Potters and Evanses) is how the Muggle Evanses, Petunia and > all, got onto Platform 9 3/4 in Severus Snape's memory of himself and > Lily at age eleven ("The Prince's Tale"). Potioncat: I know we aren't told how it's done, but I don't see why it would be a problem. Wands aren't needed to go through the wall. Maybe Muggle relatives just need to go through with their children, or maybe they're sent an enchanted ticket that allows them to pass through the gate. > > Carol, noting that Orion Black died in 1979, the same year as his > younger son, Regulus, and wondering whether he died of grief (and BTW, > shouldn't the year of Reggie's death be 1980 if it's "some fifteen > years before" Harry looks at the tapestry in August 1995 in OoP?) Potioncat: It's maths and JKR. As a group we've spent many hours basing facts on maths that were completely inaccurate--from the ages of the Weasleys to the dates of events to the length of time it took to send messages. Sure has been fun though! > From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 03:36:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 03:36:05 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182526 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore > 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year and a half ago. Carol responds: It certainly reminds me of Harry's anger in OoP, but the chief difference is that he was angry at others in OoP besides Dumbledore, first at his friends (and DD) for keeping information from him and then at Umbridge for her various atrocities (and at Snape for being Snape). The twice-felt urge to bite Dumbledore when he looks at him more or less makes Harry realize that DD has good reason for avoiding eye contact with him. Here, however, Harry (who, of course, has good reason for feeling frustrated and scared, having just lost the phoenix-feather wand that he'd been counting on to protect him from Voldemort and who may be influenced by the Horcrux as he seems to have been influenced by his own bit of Voldie soul in OoP) seems to be channeling his anger at Hermione (which he knows is unfair because she just saved his life) and at Ron for leaving them into anger at the dead Dumbledore. (How dare he die? could be part of it, too.) Just as he scapegoated Snape when Sirius Black died, he seems to be scapegoating Dumbledore, believing all of Rita's inferences and insinuations along with the undeniable evidence of the photograph and the letter (and Bathilda's testimony, obtained using Veritaserum). The Snitch seems useless and the Sword of Gryffindor might as well be in Siberia since they have no access to it and no idea where it is. The best that can be said is that Harry's very understandable anger here is better controlled than in OoP--no shouting at Hermione, no breaking the furniture--and it's only for one chapter, not the whole book. He's at the nadir of his adventure, nowhere to go but up. > > 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? Carol responds: Well, like "is" if you're Bill Clinton, "everything" doesn't have its usual meaning if you're Albus Dumbledore. By "everything," he meant "everything about Harry and Voldemort that relates to the Prophecy"--everything he'd been concealing that school year--except the small matter of one Severus Snape. He didn't, of course, tell him Tom Riddle's background or inform him of the Horcruxes until HBP, he left it to Snape to tell Harry that he himself was in effect a Horcrux, and he said nothing about himself at all. Even the "thrilling tale" of the injury to his hand was sketchily and belatedly told. No doubt Dumbldore meant what he said: he was telling Harry "everything" that he needed to know at the moment, but "everything?" Why would Harry need to know about Ariana or DD's friendship with Grindelwald, anyway? (And can you imagine DD saying, "Oh, by the way, Harry, did I ever tell you how I broke my nose?") > 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from Harry? Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to confront Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for this discussion, shall we?) Carol responds: That's an interesting question, especially since Harry's explosive reaction is so similar to Snape's similar accusation in "The Prince's Tale" ("You have used me, Dumbledore!" etc.) Obviously, Dumbledore can't tell Harry the truth about Snape, but Harry doesn't know that yet (except for the eavesdropping, which DD did conceal from him until Trelawney let slip her version of the story), and DD can't give Harry the Sword of Gryffindor directly or explain in the will what the Snitch, the Deluminator, and the book are for (he doesn't know who will read it or whether DEs will have taken over the Ministry). As for Horcruxes, he doesn't know when he writes his will which Horcrux is in the cave, much less that it's fake, and he doesn't know what or where the Ravenclaw Horcrux is. He doesn't know where the cup Horcrux is, either. So I'd say he's told Harry everything that he knows or guesses related to the Horcruxes, trusting Hermione to figure out that the Sword of Gryffindor has absorbed Basilisk venom and can be used to destroy them once they're found. (I suppose he could have said, "Don't wear the locket or drink out of the cup," but that's common sense.) I wish he could have said, "Take them to Professor Snape when you find them and he'll remove any curses before you destroy them," but Snape doesn't know about the Horcruxes and Harry doesn't know that Snape is on his side. Under the circumstances, really, I think DD did the best he could, and his friendship with Grindelwald once upon a time is just an excuse for Harry to be angry. Or that's all it is at this point, until Harry finds out about the Elder Wand. Same with the Greater Good, which meant something different to the aging Dumbledore than it did when he was seventeen. (See question 6.) > > 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, especially his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped Harry? Carol responds: A right to know? It's hard to say. How would it have helped Harry? He wasn't curious about DD's past. It surprised him to see an auburn-haired Dumbledore in the diary memory and again in the Pensieve--a boy Dumbledore is probably beyond his comprehension until he sees the photographs. He feels that he never got to know the real Dumbledore, but that's partly a reaction to the contrasting responses to DD's death that he's been hearing ever since he first read Elphias Doge's tribute followed by Rita Skeeter's insinuating interview. But what teacher confides in a student the deepest secrets of his childhood and youth? It isn't just Grindelwald that DD's concealing; it's Ariana. And, really, there's no reason for Harry to know about her--at least until Rita starts accusing DD of imprisoning his Squib sister, at which point Harry does need to know the truth. > 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part of her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable boundaries? Carol responds: She does present the evidence of the photograph, the letter, and the unethically obtained testimony of Bathilda Bagshot and she does quote other people. (We can decide for ourselves whether people who say of Aberforth "he were a headcase" are reliable witnesses.) She does inform us correctly that Aberforth broke Albus's nose at Ariana's funeral (all this time, I just thought he was born with a crooked nose!) and the detail from Bathilda of Albus sending Gellert messages in the middle of the night rings true. So does Bathilda's view of Gellert as a charming boy. I'll bet he was, more so than the young Tom Riddle because he was inclined to laughter and intellectual conversation. It's the speculations regarding Kendra, whom we later learn was protecting her daughter, not imprisoning her, and the insinuations that Ariana was a Squib of whom Albus was ashamed ("the first victim of the Greater Good?") that go beyond acceptable boundaries and border on sensationalism. (BTW, I thought the whole chapter, I mean Rita's chapter, not JKR's) was compelling reading. I'd read the book if it were real. But I'd read it critically, separating "fact" from inference and insinuation. Really, it's not that different from real biographies I've read, especially those intended to undermine the reputation of respected figures, except for those Skeeterish asides to Dumbledore's admirers, which I could have done without.) > > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own interpretation? Carol responds: Oho. We could start a whole thread with this question. Certainly, DD rejected the Magic Is Might interpretation (I don't think that his interest in Muggles, even down to Muggle sweets, was hypocrisy; I think it was a reaction against his own earlier views). As for what he now meant by it in his old age, I think it meant doing whatever was necessary to save the WW from Voldemort, including sacrificing himself and risking the lives of those who were willing and able to fight--including Harry, who had to be prepared to confront Voldemort because of the Prophecy and the Horcrux. But that doesn't mean that he didn't love Harry, just that it was all the harder to prepare him, just in case the drop of blood didn't mean what he thought it meant. But he's still taking a utilitarian approach, IMO; the greatest good for the greatest number and the good of society over the good of the individual, which sounds callous until you turn it around: "What did I care if numbers of nameless and faceless people and creatures were slaughtered in the vague future, if in the here and now you were alive, and well, and happy?" (OoP Am. ed. 839) sounds a lot worse, at least to me. Snape's fears for Lily's safety amidst indifference to Harry's and James's pales by comparison. Which is more important, Harry's one life or "the lives that might be lost if [Dumbledore's] plan failed? Which is more important, the person we love or the greater good? That's Dumbledore's dilemma, and he knows the consequences of choosing wrongly, having let the European WW suffer for five long years beforetaking action against Grindelwald. (Good thing for the WW that he never felt that way about Tom Riddle!) > 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the circumstances that led to her death to occur? Carol responds: We're jumping ahead a bit, but I'll state my opinion, any way. :-) JKR has deliberately left that question unanswered, IMO. However, Gellert's flight seems to indicate that, if wasn't responsible, he suspected that he might be. Aberforth blames Albus, not necessarily for casting the spell so much as for ignoring Ariana and placing his friendship with Gellert and their intellectual discussions above the welfare of his sister. And Albus fears that he may have killed her, which indicates that he, like Gellert, was probably casting some powerful spells (I don't think either of them cast an AK, however, or they'd have known who did it. I rule out Aberforth, who was younger and less accomplished. None of the three seems to consider the possibility that he did it. (If Gellert knew that Aberforth had done it, he would probably have stayed and accused him.) So I'd say there's a seventy-five-percent chance that Gellert killed her (with a spell intended for Aberforth), possibly a twenty-percent chance that Albus did it 9with a spell intended for Aberforth, or, less likely, Gellert), and only a five-percent chance (or less) that Aberforth did it. But, yes, Albus was at fault for placing a friendship and his own intellectual interests (even if they weren't plans for world domination) above the welfare of the younger brother and sister for whom he was responsible. Ariana's death was an accident, but it was a preventable accident. If they were going to duel at all, they should have made sure that she was safely out of the way. > > 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily chosen his brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something that showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been? Carol responds: It's really impossible to say. Since Albus so readily excused whatever Gellert did that got him expelled, I think it would have taken something as dramatic as the death of Ariana to change his mind, just as it took putting Lily in danger to change Severus's and the tormenting and near-death of Kreacher to change Regulus's. Albus was clearly an ivory-tower intellectual more concerned with ideas than people, and Muggles (despite his Muggle-born mother and Muggle neighbors) were a mere abstraction. (The tormenting of his sister by Muggle boys could not have helped to make them human in his eyes.) I don't think that Gellert's flight was the catalyst; it was his own irresponsible behavior that opened his eyes. And I don't think that anything Aberforth did or said could have made any difference, either. Just like Severus and Regulus, he had to live with the consequences of his own mistake, and do what he could, after the fact, to remedy it, whether that meant giving jobs to Squibs and werewolves or being kind to House-Elves or passing bills for the rights of Muggle-borns in the Wizengamot. > > 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG? Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter? Carol: it never occurred to me that he was gay and in love. It seemed to me (and still does) very much the sort of intellectual friendship that boys at Eton and Oxford used to form. Of course, Gellert's being charming and handsome and merry would just add to the pleasure of being in his company. The boys who followed Tom Riddle around probably weren't gay; they were just glad to be in his company because he was handsome and intelligent and talented (and descended from Slytherin). No doubt Elphias Doge tagged along with Albus in the same way at school (a kinder, gentler Wormtail). But in Gellert, in contrast to Elphias or his own eccentric little brother, Aberforth, he found for the first time an intellectual equal. Look at the content of the note he sent Gellert in the night. Yes, he expresses happiness that chance enabled them to meet--good coming out of bad, Albus thinks--but what's important to him is their plans and ideas. And that impression is reinforced by "King's Cross," where Dead!DD says: "You cannot imagine how his ideas caught me, Harry, inflamed me. Muggles forced into subservience. We wizards triumphant. Grindelwald and I, the glorious young leaders of the revolution" (716). They sound like a pair of young Bolsheviks--or fanatics of some sort, anyway. (Nazis if you prefer, but the Nazis were neither the first nor the last to hold similar views.) > 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike Gray when you need him? Carol: Erm, I'm really afraid of this one. I'll just say that Aberforth's pub, minus the goats, reminds me of an ale house from the middle ages in terms of cleanliness or the lack thereof, just as Hog's Head seems to be simultaneously a nod to real inns with names like the Boar's Head or the White (Blue) Boar, with a nod to the Hogsmeade/Hogwarts hog/flying boar motif and a pun on hogshead (a large cask or barrel). But goats? I think of Pan and satyrs and, well, I'd rather not go on, except that I can't think of anything less Dionysian than Aberforth. Maybe "scapegoat" or sacrificial goat has something to do with it? > > 11. Rita had a lot more to say in her book, stuff that Harry wasn't that interested in. Was there anything in there that particularly interested you? Like the quotes from "Dogbreath" Doge, Enid Smeek, or Bathilda Bagshot, including how she got the quotes out of Batty (veritiserum)? Or the insinuations Rita made for the reason behind the "coffin-side brawl"? Carol: All of it. It was interesting to see Rita's considerable talents as a biographer turned to something besides the latest angle on Harry. I was especially interested in her use of Veritaserum (better than Voldemort's forced Legilimency, but not by much). I doubt that Doge was ever really referred to as "Dogbreath"--Rita was just being unkind because he refused to talk to her. But Enid Smeek was mildly amusing (Skeeter's use of such an illiterate and biased witness, especially with regard to the less-than-scholarly Aberforth, was a bit ironic and seemed to show that she was desperate for witnesses--reminded me of her use of Slytherins in anti-Harry interviews during the TWT). But, yes, I was interested in the whole story, and my reaction was wholly different from Harry's--mild shock, curiosity, and wondering where the truth lay--somewhere between Doge and Skeeter, but could Rita actually be nearer than Doge? (As it turns out, I think she could.) Admittedly, though, on a first reading, I was less interested in DD's backstory than on rereading. I really wanted them to get on with the Horcrux hunt (and Ron to return). Carol, thanking the Elves for the very interesting discussion questions and "Harry" for the unusual perspective for the summary From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 04:19:19 2008 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 04:19:19 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldermort's powers Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182527 So, I think I might have posted this question before or something like it, but it came to me today as I was rereading the 6th book. What exactly makes Voldermort so powerful? His father was a Muggle and his mother we never see that she was overly powerful. So I don't see that it could have been in his genes. The same with Harry really, though it seems we see his parents were talented in their own ways, nothing suggests the combo of their abilities would make a "great" wizard. I'm not sure I'm phrasing this right and it is late. I hope what I am trying to say is coming across. Please and thank you to anyone that chooses to reply. Tandra From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 06:34:40 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 06:34:40 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldermort's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182528 Tandra wrote: > it, but it came to me today as I was rereading the 6th book. What > exactly makes Voldermort so powerful? His father was a Muggle and his > mother we never see that she was overly powerful. So I don't see that > it could have been in his genes. > > The same with Harry really, though it seems we see his parents were > talented in their own ways, nothing suggests the combo of their > abilities would make a "great" wizard. Niru writes: I guess a wizard/witch's power is somewhat similar to looks, intelligence, or any of the myraid qualities in a person. For example, my parents are both pretty good-looking and quite intelligent. None of my grandparents could have been considered intelligent. Meaning that my grandparents had fairly average to somewhat below average IQ whereas my parents are both above average. Same with looks. I guess someone (or many someones) somewhere in their respective family trees had good looks that passed on to them. I really don't know what determines a person's IQ. Would a genius or a couple of geniuses automatically produce another genius? The same must be true for a wizard/witch's "raw" magical power. While Merope may not have been powerful, Voldemort did have powerful people in the family tree. Salazar Slytherin for example. As for Harry... James Potter was reputed to be one of the brightest students in the school in his day. And he managed the Animagus transformation at about age 15. Plus he helped write the Marauder's Map which is definitely quite an impressive bit of magic. Lily was reputed to be a very talented witch as well. So Harry has some more immediate good "pedigree" (for lack of a better word). - Niru From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 15 09:21:15 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 09:21:15 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldermort's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182530 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > > Tandra wrote: > > SNIP> Niru writes: > > I guess a wizard/witch's power is somewhat similar to looks, > intelligence, or any of the myraid qualities in a person. For example, > > > The same must be true for a wizard/witch's "raw" magical power. While > Merope may not have been powerful, Voldemort did have powerful people > in the family tree. Salazar Slytherin for example. > > As for Harry... James Potter was reputed to be one of the brightest > students in the school in his day. And he managed the Animagus > transformation at about age 15. Plus he helped write the Marauder's > Map which is definitely quite an impressive bit of magic. Lily was > reputed to be a very talented witch as well. So Harry has some more > immediate good "pedigree" (for lack of a better word). > > - Niru Just delurking to make a comment here. Was Harry that talented anyway. He had a lot of courage and determination, but Hermonie was much cleverer than Harry in picking up spells etc. Jayne From jamess at climaxgroup.com Tue Apr 15 11:34:31 2008 From: jamess at climaxgroup.com (James Sharman) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:34:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Voldemort and Harry related? Message-ID: <495A161B83F7544AA943600A98833B530D06A47B@mimas.fareham.climax.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 182531 > dukelover_0890: > I was thinking that Harry and Voldemort were related through the > brothers of the Deathly Hollows. The stone was passed down to the > Gaunts and the cloak was passed down to Harry. Since it went through > the family, doesn't that make them related in a far kinda sorta way. Remember that both Harry's father and Voldemort's mother were pure blood, the point has already been discussed that the family tree of the wizarding community (especially those with any claim to "pureblood" status) probably looks more like a spiders web than a tree. There doesn't seem to be a very specific time frame mentioned for the Peverell's but I had the impression that it's many centuries or more, across that kind of time frame it's likely that everyone in the ww has multiple connections in there ancestry. We just happen to know one of the connections between Harry and tom because it was pertinent to the story. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 15 13:11:03 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:11:03 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182532 SSSusan: Thanks, Mike & Sherry, for the interesting POV on this chapter! > 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this > worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a > year and a half ago. SSSusan: It feels worse to me, for a couple of reasons. First, it feels like more is on the line now. Yes, things were serious -- very serious -- in OotP, but at this point, it's ALL coming to a head, there's work that MUST be completed, riddles which HAVE to be figured out, or the whole WW is going to suffer. The stakes simply feel higher to me now, because it's not "just" Harry and the prophecy and his potential death; now it's the culmination of VWII and the distinct possibility that Voldy might be truly victorious this time, with all the attendant consequences for the Wizarding and Muggle words. The other reason it feels worse to me is that DD is dead & gone now. There will be no opportunity for sorting through information together, for hashing things out, for getting questions answered. The questions and frustrations and general pissed-offness that Harry is feeling has nowhere to GO, if you know what I mean. And I think that makes it harder. > 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole > truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was > he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from > Harry? Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to > confront Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head > for this discussion, shall we?) SSSusan: It's hard *not* to feel that DD didn't trust him with the whole truth. In fact, this aspect of DD bothered me more than about anything else in DH when I first finished the book. It bothered me a great deal that Harry was seeking the truth, made it clear than he wanted the truth -- all of it -- and yet DD held things back. Part of it DD probably didn't know and couldn't share, but other parts? It really felt like there were things he could have and should have shared. For instance, was he so worried that his artifacts left to H/R/H would fall into enemy hands that he could leave NO explanation? Did he believe that if things were given too easily to the Trio that they'd not take things seriously enough or focus hard enough? I don't know, but it sure seems to me that as much of a head start as he could have given them would have been helpful! Yes, he went through the list of items he believed were horcruxes with Harry, but there *was* more he could have shared imo. Harry being pissed at DD for withholding info feels dead-on and appropriate to me. > 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, > especially his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad > because DD didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge > have helped Harry? SSSusan: This is an excellent question. I'm not sure I know how to answer it. I think there was a *large* kernel of truth in Hermione's comment that Harry was just upset that DD didn't share this on his own, yet there's a part of me that understands why Harry felt he really *deserved* to know. Whether those revelations would have been helpful to his MISSION, though, I'm just not sure.... I'll be interested to see what others write about this. > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore > changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's > interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own > interpretation? SSSusan: I do believe he did reject it, yes. What he didn't reject, imo, was his belief that he knew best, that he should be the one deciding what information to parse out to whom and when. But I think he did reject the GG interpretation of the phrase, yes. > 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to > Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke > his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the > circumstances that led to her death to occur? SSSusan: I know there are people who will say that Albus was to blame and who would doubt his willingness to take on the blame if he hadn't actually directly caused Ariana's death, but I'm one of those who still finds a hell of a lot of good in Albus, and who sees him as one who is willing, by & large, to shoulder big burdens and to take on blame more than many others would do. I think that he did take the blame because he allowed the circumstances that led to the death. Perhaps he truly didn't know what specific spell caused the actual death. Perhaps he did know and it was -- or wasn't-- his own spell. But I think he knew that his selfishness and inattentiveness truly were at the root of what happened, and he took responsibility for that. > 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with > Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to > indicate that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than > just his mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally > confront GG? Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after > this chapter? SSSusan: No, I did not sense that DD was gay and that this relationship was, at least on DD's part, an in-love relationship. The five years was VERY distressing to me and that, particularly, was where I thought it would have been helpful for JKR to have revealed DD's gayness in text. That is, I think being best buds with someone vs. being in love with someone is a different thing, and the delay in confronting GG made a WHOLE lot more sense to me after the nature of the relationship/feelings was revealed. > 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike > Gray when you need him? SSSusan: LOL! I wish I knew. Siriusly Snapey Susan From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Tue Apr 15 13:41:25 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:41:25 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182533 Betsy Hp: > > But I disagree that you're providing examples of special powers > > on Voldemort's part. He's vicious and blunt and will use the > > magic all wizards have to the fullest extent of his ability, > > no matter what they may do to his victims. But there's not > > something so uniquely different about his powers that it explains > > why the WW had no choice but to cave to his appearance and await > > a "special hero" to save them. > Carol responds: SSSusan: I suspect that what you've supplied, Carol, is more along the lines of what Betsy was after than what I'm thinking of. Still, as I read Betsy's words, one specific scene came to my mind. Since it wasn't in the extensive list you provided, I thought I'd at least mention it here. Again, it might be an example of Voldy being powerFUL, rather than of his having SPECIAL powers, so it might not be what you were after, Betsy. Still, I'll mention it. :) I think of the scene in the climactic Hogwarts battle, where Voldy is battling *simultaneously* with McGonagall, Slughorn and Shacklebolt. He is holding his own against THREE full-grown, well-trained adult wizards and Order members. And he isn't losing ground, according to the text! To me, that was truly amazing. Kingsley alone was the MfM's guard, correct? And did such a great job of it that the Minister didn't want to lose him. Add in McGonagall and Slughorn, and still Voldy's not struggling. I find that to be true testament to his power and his abilities. FWIW. Siriusly Snapey Susan From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 15 13:41:58 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:41:58 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Hogs Head pub Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182534 I have a question for all you clever people. Had we come across Aberforth prior to DH as propieter of Hogs head bar? It was such a surprise to me when the Trio came across him Jayne De lurking to ask the above From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 15 15:04:08 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:04:08 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Hogs Head pub In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182535 "Jayne" wrote: > > I have a question for all you clever people. > Had we come across Aberforth prior to DH as propieter of Hogs head bar? > It was such a surprise to me when the Trio came across him Potioncat: Those of us with sharp eyes and memories or the opportunity to discuss it here have. We first see him in OoP in the bar when the DA is being formed, and we get his name in the same book when Moody shows Harry a photo of earlier Order members. (or was that a later book?) Added with a few comments by DD and most of us had put it together. Of course, even by DH it wasn't yet canon. Harry recognised him at DD's funeral as the man from the Hog's Head, but didn't realize it was Aberforth. Potioncat, who can place herself as "us" but can't recall if I worked out any of this independently. (and rather doubts I would have.) From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 15 15:16:29 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:16:29 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Hogs Head pub In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182536 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > "Jayne" wrote: > > > > I have a question for all you clever people. > > Had we come across Aberforth prior to DH as propieter of Hogs head > bar? > > It was such a surprise to me when the Trio came across him > > > Potioncat: > Those of us with sharp eyes and memories or the opportunity to discuss > it here have. We first see him in OoP in the bar when the DA is being > formed, and we get his name in the same book when Moody shows Harry a > photo of earlier Order members. (or was that a later book?) Added with > a few comments by DD and most of us had put it together. > > Of course, even by DH it wasn't yet canon. Harry recognised him at DD's > funeral as the man from the Hog's Head, but didn't realize it was > Aberforth. > > Potioncat, who can place herself as "us" but can't recall if I worked > out any of this independently. (and rather doubts I would have.) > Yes of course. I had forgotten about the funeral. Glad to see someone takes notice of what they read(VBG ) Thank you Potioncat Jayne From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 15:16:35 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:16:35 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182537 --- "Mike" wrote: > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore > > ... > > QUESTIONS: > > .... > > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said > Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected > Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore > reject his own interpretation? > bboyminn: I'm going to just address this one issue. The problem with the quoted statement is that there are two more words to it, though those two words may only be implied. When Dumbledore and Grindelwald were first discussing 'the greater good', they were feeling that the wizard world was a little put upon and downtrodden. Wizards were forced into hiding by the cruelty of muggles and they felt that was unfair. So, when, at that time they say 'for the greater good', what they mean is for the greater good /of wizards/. They are willing to oppress and subjugate an entire race of millions of people for the greater good of a few thousand people, meaning of course, the wizard world. Later in life, Dumbledore still believes in the greater good, but he now believed in the greater good /of all/. He is not being such a selfish child blinded by glory and infatuation. Even Harry acknowledges that there are times when the greater good of all take priority of the fate of a few. So, to put context to the statement 'for the greater good', you must add what comes after. For the greater good of a powerful elite is for the greater good of no one. For the greater good of all, without stomping on the right of minorities, is to think and act selflessly as we see both Harry and Dumbledore do many times. Sadly, if I may get political for a moment, this reminds me very much of modern politicians. They are in it for the greater good of an elite few, rather than the greater good of the people who put them in office and for whom they are sworn to act in the best interests of. HARRY POTTER FOR PRESIDENT!!! Steve/bboyminn From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Tue Apr 15 19:10:44 2008 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:10:44 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182538 > Betsy Hp: > Frankly, since she was so obviously uninterested in the process, I'm > not sure why she bothered having Voldemort actually take over the > WW. It didn't add anything to Harry's part in the story, and it was > Harry's part she was obviously more interested in. At least, that's > how it read to me. Hickengruendler: It added a lot to Harry's part in the story, because it made his whole quest much more difficult, since the Trio had to hide and since they couldn't be sure whom to trust (see Xenophilius Lovegood). From a more practical point of view, JKR made also sure, that the Trio couldn't go to Hogwarts to do research in the library or to ask Dumbledore's portrait, which is also directly connected to the fall of the Ministry. > Betsy Hp: > The reason I have a hard time seeing JKR's version of "innate > morality" being for everyone in her universe is that a Gryffindor and > a not-Gryffindor may take the same action, and that action is judged > differently within the books. > > For example: Fred (or George) may beat up a younger boy for giving > him cheek. And it doesn't have a bearing on Fred's innate morality. > We're not meant to judge Fred for it. Dudley (a non-Gryffindor) does > the same thing, and it's something we as readers are expected to > judge Dudley's (lack of) morality by. Hickengruendler: That's not untrue. The twins (and a few other characters as well) often represent JKR's obviously pretty dark sense of humor. And there often is some double standard. But, to use the same example you did. How do these characters end? Dudley gets a redemption scene in the end, and (if you want to count JKR's interview) a family and a general Happy Ending. (As did Draco.) George looses an ear and Fred dies. It may be a heroe's death and a tragical scene, but still, at least Dudley's ending does not show any ill-will towards him by the author. > Betsy Hp: > Bravery is the end all, be all of JKR's moral ladder of worth in this > universe. And Gryffindors (being the house of the brave) are > naturally on top. Sure some may screw up and betray their bravery (I > think JKR would see Peter as an example here), but they are all at > least starting out with the right attitude. Anyone not-Gryffindor is > missing that key component and so starting out life on the wrong > foot. And it takes a great deal of scrambling and most likely > a "heroic death" to make up for that lack. Hickengruendler: Luna? Cho? Professor Sprout? Professor Flitwick? All the D.A. members from the other houses? Cedric? Okay, some of them are minor characters, and Cedric did die, but I disagree, that they were portrayed, as if there were anything wrong with them, just because they weren't Gryffindors. > > Betsy Hp: > > For example: Any wizard willing to create a horcrux and put their > piece of soul into an animal will control that animal as well as > Voldemort controlled his snake. So his control of Nagini isn't what > I'd term a special power. Hickengruendler: Dumbledore said in HBP, that the reason Voldie made Nagini into a Horcrux, was, because he felt particularly close to her, closer than to any human being. So the close bonding between snakeface and Nagini was *before* she became his Horcrux. Hickengruendler From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 19:38:09 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:38:09 -0000 Subject: Aberforth and Hogs Head pub In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182539 Jayne wrote: > > I have a question for all you clever people. > Had we come across Aberforth prior to DH as propieter of Hogs head bar? It was such a surprise to me when the Trio came across him No: HPFGUIDX 182540 > Jayne wrote: > I have a question for all you clever people. > Had we come across Aberforth prior to DH as propieter of Hogs > head bar? > It was such a surprise to me when the Trio came across him. I am certain that many of the clever people from this list will answer this directly from canon, so please forgive me if my answer isn't nearly as clever as others will be. I recall that many times Dumbledore had known certain facts and gave credit to being friendly with the barman at Hogshead. Just off of the top of my head I remember reading something along these lines a few times in different books. It was a surprise to me when I first read that Aberforth was the barman of Hogshead. I remember thinking that all this time DD's brother was so near and then suddenly it dawned on me that we did kind of know this all along. Aberforth was the one to give DD so much information about the happenings around Hogshead, such as the DA, and Voldemort arriving with Death Eaters in tow when applying for the DADA position. It all just made sense and was a nice feeling to think of Aberforth being so close all of this time. Cathy who apologizes for not writing something much more clever. From brenwen at verizon.net Tue Apr 15 19:14:31 2008 From: brenwen at verizon.net (Brenwen) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 19:14:31 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182541 I am coming out of my lurking position where I have been for several years, just to ask a question that may have been addressed earlier, and I apologize if it's a repeat. In DH - how did the sword of Gryffindor get from the hands of the goblin Griphook [after the debacle at Gringotts Bank] back to the sorting hat where Neville could grab it and decapitate Nagini? (I am not sure if I am incorrectly spelling any of these names as my book is not handy). This has been bothering me ever since my third or fourth reading (listening). Brenwen From tubazrcool at yahoo.com Tue Apr 15 22:07:06 2008 From: tubazrcool at yahoo.com (Heather Rivera) Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor Message-ID: <657340.92779.qm@web38507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182542 Brenwen (snipped): In DH - how did the sword of Gryffindor get from the hands of the goblin Griphook [after the debacle at Gringotts Bank] back to the sorting hat where Neville could grab it and decapitate Nagini? tubazrcool: I think it just disappeared ... like magic or something. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:23:27 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:23:27 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <657340.92779.qm@web38507.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182543 Brenwen wrote: > > In DH - how did the sword of Gryffindor get from the hands of the goblin Griphook [after the debacle at Gringotts Bank] back to the sorting hat where Neville could grab it and decapitate Nagini? tubazrcool: > > I think it just disappeared ... like magic or something. > Carol responds: Yes, the answer is definitely magic of some sort. I think that the Sword must have had a spell on it that caused it to come to a Gryffindor "under conditions of need and valor," as DD tells Snape in "The Prince's Tale" (DH Am. ed. 689). Whether Dumbledore set up those conditions or is merely familiar with them, I'm not sure, but my guess is that they've always been part of the magic of the sword. Consequently, Griphook, who took the sword claiming that it belonged to the Goblins, was wrong. It belongs to Gryffindor House, and just as it came to Harry when he was facing the Basilisk in CoS, brought by Fawkes, probably on instruction from Dumbledore, it came to Neville when he bravely faced Voldemort without a wand and under instructions from Harry to kill Nagini. Anyway, that's how I answer it for myself. Carol, at a loss for a sig line From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:31:26 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:31:26 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldermort's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182544 Jayne wrote: > > Just delurking to make a comment here. > Was Harry that talented anyway. He had a lot of courage and > determination, but Hermonie was much cleverer than Harry in picking > up spells etc. Niru writes: Oh! Undoubtedly Hermione was cleverer. The cleverest witch Hogwarts had seen in many, many years. But Harry wasn't bad himself. He mastered the Patronus charm at the age of 13 (just an example). So he is definitely powerful. Plus he's no dunce. If nothing, at least his OWL results said that he is fairly talented. Mostly Es... and he beat Hermione in DADA with an O. But, as far as what was most important for Harry it was other things. Courage, determination, his immense ability to love, etc. - Niru (who thinks Hermione's intelligence is so great it makes people around her appear a little stupid even if they pretty smart themselves) From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 00:46:44 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 00:46:44 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182545 > SSSusan: > No, I did not sense that DD was gay and that this relationship was, > at least on DD's part, an in-love relationship. The five years was > VERY distressing to me and that, particularly, was where I thought it > would have been helpful for JKR to have revealed DD's gayness in > text. That is, I think being best buds with someone vs. being in > love with someone is a different thing, and the delay in confronting > GG made a WHOLE lot more sense to me after the nature of the > relationship/feelings was revealed. Niru writes: I'm going off at a tangent here. But this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've heard of the "five" years. Is this in DH? (I don't have the book handy). Ok... here's why I'm confused. DD and GG were both about 18 when they met. I seem to remember from PS/SS that GG was defeated sometime around 1945 or so (from the chocolate frog card if I'm not mistaken). DD was 115 years old when he died. He died in 1997. So he was about 52 when he defeated GG (give or take a few years). So, the five year gap thing has me royally confounded now. - Niru From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Apr 16 01:30:54 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:30:54 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182546 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > > > > > SSSusan: > > No, I did not sense that DD was gay and that this relationship was, > > at least on DD's part, an in-love relationship. The five years was > > VERY distressing to me and that, particularly, was where I thought > it > > would have been helpful for JKR to have revealed DD's gayness in > > text. That is, I think being best buds with someone vs. being in > > love with someone is a different thing, and the delay in confronting > > GG made a WHOLE lot more sense to me after the nature of the > > relationship/feelings was revealed. > > > Niru writes: > > I'm going off at a tangent here. But this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've > heard of the "five" years. Is this in DH? (I don't have the book > handy). Ok... here's why I'm confused. DD and GG were both about 18 > when they met. I seem to remember from PS/SS that GG was defeated > sometime around 1945 or so (from the chocolate frog card if I'm not > mistaken). DD was 115 years old when he died. He died in 1997. So he > was about 52 when he defeated GG (give or take a few years). So, the > five year gap thing has me royally confounded now. and hoping someone knows the counter-jinx> > > - Niru > >Nikkalmati >What has me puzzled is why it took so long for Grindenwald to try to >take over the world. If we start his attempt in 1939, Grindenwald >and Dumbledore have not seen each other for say 95 years? They had >plans back when they were boys in about 1870. What was Grindenwald >doing all that time? >Nikkalmati From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 16 01:50:55 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:50:55 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182547 > > Betsy Hp: > It's doesn't count as the "how" for me because I see it more as > the "what". The MoM fell to Voldemort and the DE's, yes. But I see > no reason for it to have fallen so easily. (Far more easily, IMO, > than any similiar RL event JKR may have meant to evoke.) Pippin: Why did Harry succumb so easily to Umbridge? He'd fought the Dark Lord wand to wand only a few months before, and yet he let a dumpy little witch in a pink sweater make him carve graffiti into his hand? It's not that Umbridge was an adult and Harry a child -- he'd fought and defeated adults before. It's not that Umbridge was a mighty witch -- she wasn't. She wasn't intellectually or physically imposing either. But canon shows us how helpless Harry felt with the whole ministry arrayed against him -- simultaneously the victim of a smear campaign and an assault on his rights and his person. The Ministry could take everything he values: his wand, his freedom and his reputation, even his favorite sport, and they didn't even need a wand to do it, just a stroke of the quill. They can do the same to anyone who tries to help him. His friends suggest that Harry go to Dumbledore or McGonagall, but Harry isn't sure they can or will do anything, and he can't bring himself to try -- asking for help would only make him feel more helpless. This is canon, not wanking, quotes on request. DH is a dark landscape illuminated by lightening flashes, but we can guess what's out there because we've been over this ground before. JKR's not uninterested in the process of a silent coup, IMO, she's so interested that she devoted an entire volume to it. If JKR could have put everything we needed to understand what's happening in DH *in* DH, she wouldn't have needed to write the other books. DH is the last installment in a seven volume serial -- it's as dependent on what goes before as the last chapters of The Three Musketeers. If you started that book at the end, you'd have no idea whether to believe all the accusations against Milady. I've read a parody with just that premise, where Milady is a proto-feminist avenger and the Musketeers are oafs. JKR doesn't tell us *how* to apply what we've read previously. She leaves that to us. And why not? Textbooks contain problems for the reader to solve as well as examples all worked out; why shouldn't novels with something to teach do the same? Would we still be discussing all this almost a year later if she hadn't left us things to figure out? Betsy HP: > For example: Fred (or George) may beat up a younger boy for giving > him cheek. And it doesn't have a bearing on Fred's innate morality. > We're not meant to judge Fred for it. Pippin: If we're talking about Montague, I don't believe we have any canon on whether he's younger than the Twins. The Lexicon guesses that he's older than Draco, since Draco hadn't made Quidditch captain by his fifth year. Hermione wonders whether someone should be told what happened to Montague, which implicitly raises the question of whether the Twins went too far -- usually the question of snitching doesn't even arise. If we're talking about ganging up on Draco, McGonagall certainly judges the Twins for that, so I don't see how you can say we're not meant to. Arthur judges them for their attack on Dudley. In all these examples we can see two moral systems at work. The Twins want to do what is correct, IMO, but they live in a world of two moral cultures: that of the students and that of the adults. The rewards of the student culture are more immediate, so they generally do what the students would approve of, and never mind what McGonagall or Molly thinks. But they wouldn't dream of doing anything immoral by student standards: snitching, for example, or setting up another student to take the fall for something that they did. Their choices show what they are: children, not adults, despite their ages. I do think that by the end we're supposed to see Dudley as innately moral, in the sense that he wants to behave correctly. His parents, who refused to acknowledge his bullying, allowed him to perceive his behavior as correct. But he knew dimly that there was something not right about this, as his overeating and constant destruction of his own possessions show. He was a deeply unhappy child all along -- it just took the dementors to make him realize it. > > >>zgirnius: > > > > This explains why Gryffindors are for the most part the heroes of > > this story, by the way. All the characters have innate morality, but this is a story of life-and-death struggle and danger...so the brave characters who can cope with life and death stuff, come out looking best. > > > > Betsy Hp: > Bravery is the end all, be all of JKR's moral ladder of worth in this universe. And Gryffindors (being the house of the brave) are > naturally on top. Pippin: Gryffindor House idealizes bravery, so in a story about bravery, everyone is measured against the ideals of Gryffindor, whether they are Gryffindors or not. If JKR had wanted to champion creativity and the pursuit of excellence, she might have made her heroes Slytherins and judged everyone against the Slytherin ideal. But our society already puts a premium on those things, to the point where fame and fortune accrue to the people who create excellent stories about heroes rather than to heroes themselves . It's not that JKR is against creativity and excellence, IMO, it's just that few in our society lack encouragement to pursue them. And I believe she feels that people who pursue those ends to the exclusion of others are likely to fall short ethically -- shorter than they would if they were encouraged to value bravery too (not to mention hard work, loyalty and wisdom.) But to claim an ideal is not to live up to it. Gryffindors are as likely to fall short of their ideal as anyone else in canon, and of course you don't have to be a Gryffindor to be brave in JKR's world -- consider all the wizards who are not sorted at all because they aren't Hogwarts students. We meet two of them: Fleur and Krum. They're not in Harry's class, of course, but then, none of the other Gryffindors are either. Betsy Hp: > But it is a lack and it means a not-Gryffindor will never stand equal with a Gryffindor. I think the best that can be a hoped for is > a "very nearly there". Pippin: Odd, then, that Harry ends by promoting Snape's bravery above Sirius's. To claim that Snape, admired by Slytherins to the end, is so apostate from Slytherin that he no longer counts strikes me as wanking, to say the least. In fact to buy into your analysis of the story, I'd have to presume everything Harry thought or said from the moment he emerged from the pensieve in DH was insincere, and in a character whose sincerity is so great that he couldn't learn even basic occlumency, that's a leap even Buckbeak couldn't manage, IMO. > > Betsy Hp: > Just to be clear, I've read what I've snipped. You aren't being > ignored. But I disagree that you're providing examples of > special powers on Voldemort's part. He's vicious and blunt and will > use the magic all wizards have to the fullest extent of his ability, > no matter what they may do to his victims. But there's not something so uniquely different about his powers that it explains why the WW had no choice but to cave to his appearance and await a "special hero" to save them. Pippin: It's the combination of his powers that's unique. He has the theoretical dark arts knowledge of Quirrell, the charisma of Lockhart, the shrewdness of Pettigrew, the acting ability of Barty Jr, the ruthlessness of Umbridge, the magical ability and practical skills of Snape, and, dare I say it, the will to power of the young Albus Dumbledore. He's a perfect storm, a hundred year flood, a confluence of talents none of which is unique in themselves but which in total are more than formidable, even when he's sacrificed most of his charisma to the powers of the horcruxes. At least until he overreaches. I don't know think that happens too soon. I wasn't really aware that he was breaking down until he started punishing people for the theft of the cup (perhaps that was when he began to feel the EW couldn't do all he expected of it. Peter Pettigrew had managed to kill twelve people with a single spell, why not LV?) Betsy Hp: As of DH, I think only his viciousness remained as a real > part of his nature. Which I found actually lessened him as a > villain. He was reduced to a thug, more willing to be a thug than > all the thugs surrounding him. Which, yes, thugs can be scary but it doesn't take all that much to take them down. And they rarely (if > ever? I can't think of any) achieve world domination. Pippin: And that's the inevitable result of Voldemort's ruthlessness. Barty, Lockhart and Umbridge make the same mistake, and IMO, for the same reason. They can be as ruthless as they are because they have no interior censor -- none of them ever lost a moment of sleep to a troubled conscience. All we ever hear them worry about is not getting caught. But let them feel that's no longer a threat, and they are soon impaled on their own swords --- they lack the emotional need to hesitate, to dwell on what might go wrong, so they don't. Give 'em enough rope, as the saying is, and they'll hang themselves. I think this is the reason that Harry's victories depend so much on luck. It's fine to be clever and resourceful and take advantage of the enemy's mistakes, but he still has to make them. It would be a lie to say that cleverness and resourcefulness will always be enough to keep you alive till that happens. JKR can't promise that, only that if people are willing to "fight what seems to be a losing battle" against this kind of evil, someone will be able to defeat it eventually -- but there's no guarantee that person will survive. It didn't have to be Harry, but it had to be someone who would do what he did -- go on in the face of despair and with no hope for himself. Could it have been a group instead of a single person? Of course, but since it's the emotional readiness for this fight that concerns JKR, it's more easily explored through one mind. Pippin From horridporrid03 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 02:07:40 2008 From: horridporrid03 at yahoo.com (horridporrid03) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 02:07:40 -0000 Subject: Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182548 > >>Betsy Hp: > > > > But there's not something so uniquely different about his powers > > that it explains why the WW had no choice but to cave to his > > appearance and await a "special hero" to save them. > > > Carol responds: > > You stated: "But there's not something so uniquely different about > his powers that it explains why the WW had no choice but to cave > to his appearance and await a "special hero" to save them." > > I just countered that statement with canon. Possession, > Parseltongue, invasive Legilimency, Dark magic in various forms > (including Inferi, Bathilda!Nagini, potions with no antidotes, > curses with no countercurse, potions that use the blood, body, and > bone of others to restore a body that has been destroyed, > Horcruxes). And, of course, he and his followers do indeed make > widespread use of the Unforgiveable Curses, though I would hardly > call them "the magic that everyone else has" since most Wizards > would not use them. > > Rather than snipping my examples and sweeping them aside as the same > magic that everyone else uses, how about showing me some examples of > other wizards who use that same kind of magic? Betsy Hp: I'll snip where I want to snip, thank you. But okay, you're absolutely right. Voldemort is a unique and special wizard. Now I'm curious: Why Harry? > >>Carol, who has used hours looking up canon to support her > arguments and hopes that Betsy will quote some canon of her own to > counter them Betsy Hp: But, whenever someone reads a Harry Potter book, God kills a kitten! From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Apr 16 03:50:45 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:50:45 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182549 > 1. Harry hasn't been this mad at Dumbledore since OotP. Was this > worse? Compare and contrast this anger with Harry's rage from a year > and a half ago. Oryomai: It's definitely worse. There isn't even any way that Harry can come to terms with his anger this time -- Dumbledore is gone. Dumbledore even lied to Harry when he told him that he was going to tell him everything. Harry's life and the future of the Wizarding World depend on what Harry is able to do, and Dumbledore has left him without a significant chunk of knowledge. > 2. Dumbledore calmed Harry in OotP by launching into the whole > prophecy story, and he started it by saying "I am going to tell you > everything." In light of this DH chapter, did he? Oryomai: Um...no. He did the usual Dumbledore -- I'll tell you only as much as you need to know in order to think that I'm telling you everything. > 3. Is Harry right about Dumbledore not trusting him with the whole > truth? We all know about Dumbledore's penchant for secrecy, but was > he withholding any information regarding the Horcrux hunt from >Harry? Was he withholding any information that Harry needed to >confront Voldemort? (Let's leave out the soul bit in Harry's head for >this discussion, shall we?) Oryomai: Dumbledore never trusted anyone with the whole truth. It's not right, but that's what he did. Harry needed *all* of the information in order to know what he was doing. Dumbledore left Harry with a dangerous mission and left him with a billion questions. Harry should've known about the Hallows -- he wouldn't have been distracted by them if he would've known what they were. > > 4. Did Harry have a right to know about Dumbledore's past, especially > his friendship with GG? Harry admits he may only be mad because DD > didn't reveal it himself, but how would that knowledge have helped > Harry? Oryomai: I think Dumbledore's friendship with GG could've helped him learn the lesson he never learned in 7 books: people aren't always what they seem. If Harry would've known about Dumbledore and GG, maybe he would have thought twice about other people in the series... > 5. How much do you think Rita was stretching the truth in the part of > her book we read? It was obvious where she put in her own opinion, > but on the rest did you think she was telling it honestly, adorning > the truth a little, or stretching the truth beyond acceptable > boundaries? Oryomai: Rita was probably stretching the truth a bit, but I don't think she was doing it any more than any other journalist. For Rita Skeeter, I think it's positively honest. *eg* > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said Dumbledore > changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected Grindelwald's > interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore reject his own > interpretation? Oryomai: Um...no. We see DD's love of "For the Greater Good" in everything that he does! He doesn't tell people certain parts of the truth because he is trying to protect them. His idea of greater good is in order to help people. DD thinks that he's helping people by keeping them in the dark about certain things (even though he's totally wrong). Dumbledore stayed true to his interpretation. > 7. Rita had her own speculation. What do you think happened to > Ariana? Was it Albus's fault, as Aberforth contended when he broke > his nose, or was Albus taking the blame because he allowed the > circumstances that led to her death to occur? Oryomai: I think it was GG. I think that that's why Aberforth attacked Albus, and that's why Albus didn't fight back at all. GG probably didn't mean to do that, but it's possible he did. > 8. As Harry asked above: if Grindelwald hadn't fled, would Dumbledore > have changed his ways? Would Dumbledore have necessarily chosen his > brother over Gellert? Do you think Aberforth did something that > showed Albus the error of his ways, and what could that have been? Oryomai: I don't think so. I don't think Dumbledore entirely changed his ways at all. He switched what side of the argument he was on, but his tactics were always the same. No one can say for sure whether he would've changed his ways or not, but I don't think so. > 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with > Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate > that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his > mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG? > Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter? Oryomai: This is definitely one of those things that's inside JKR's head. I didn't really see it. I think we needed more time with the two of them together in order to see it the way she did. I think it took Dumbledore five years to go after him (P.S. I think that the "five years" are the five years between when GG started causing real trouble and when DD went after him) because it brought back all the memories of what had happened. > 10. OK, what's with Aberforth and the damn goats? And where is Mike > Gray when you need him? Oryomai: I'd really like to know the deal with the goats. I wonder if it's something totally misconstrued, just like DD's father's attack of the Muggle boys. Oryomai, who thinks it was a wonderful chapter summary by Harry (should we call it a life summary since it's his real life?) From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 03:55:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 03:55:57 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 3 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182550 "Yeah, I see what you mean Remus," said a bald black wizard standing farthest back; he had a deep slow voice and wore a single gold hoop in his ear. " He looks exactly like James" "Except his eyes," said a wheezy voiced, silver haired wizard at the back. "Lily's eyes" - p.47 Alla: Blink. Kingsley never saw Harry before? "Very clean, aren't they these muggles? said the witch called Tonks, who was looking around the kitchen with great interest. "My dad's Muggle born and he's right old slob. I suppose it varies, just like with wizards" - p.50 Alla: OY Tonks, all muggles are slobs and that is based on your dad, who is not even a muggle, but muggle born? Prejudiced a bit, I say. What was the reaction you had about her dad after this paragraph? Did you have any? "Damn it," he added angrily, putting a hand up to the magical eye, " it keeps sticking - ever since that scum wore it" - p.50 Alla: Love that she did not forget to mention Moody's anger and how in tune this attitude is with how he feels in Pensieve scene. I mean, not that I judge him here. I would be mad as hell if somebody drugged me for months and used and abused me. "Yeah, it does," said Tonks decisively. She screwed up her eyes in a strained expression as though she were struggling to remember something. A second later, her hair had turned bubble-gum pink. **** "I'm a metamorphmagus..... It means I can change my appearance at will" - p.52 Alla: Cutting this quote short, but I believe leaving all relevant to my question information in. This description made me think that Tonks or any Metamorphmagus can change only to somebody whose appearance she already saw at some point and remembered, that she cannot just create the appearance out of nowhere. Thoughts? "Come here boy," said Moody gruffly, beckoning Harry toward him with his wand. " I need to Disillusion you" - p.54 Alla: It had been said in the past, I am sure, but when I read things like that I always think that these things are the reason why I like JKR's writing, even if it is not always perfect. This metaphor is so simple and still so cool to me. Doesn't it represent in a couple sentences what Harry will endure in the next three books? I mean, besides Voldy hunting that is. Harry will slowly but surely discover that WW is not just a world to escape but which has lots of dark things too, and will grow up because of this knowledge IMO anyways. And of course there will be that specific disillusionment with Dumbledore. Beatiful. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 05:08:09 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:08:09 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182551 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > I'm going off at a tangent here. But this is the 2nd or 3rd time I've > heard of the "five" years. Is this in DH? (I don't have the book > handy). Yeah, it's from Rita's book: "... Dumbledore delayed, for some five years of turmoil, fatalities, and disappearances, his attack upon Gellert Grindelwald" ("The Life and Lies ...", p.359 Am ed.). As for your question, I believe that it's not five years from the time DD and GG parted ways, but five years from the time GG started taking over Europe and the wizarding community turned to DD in the hope that he would interfere - probably from 1940 to 1945. Hope this helps, zanooda From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 05:15:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:15:24 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 3 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182552 Alla wrote: > > Blink. Kingsley never saw Harry before? > Carol responds: I'm curious, Alla. Why do you think that Kingsley would have seen Harry before? Remus Lupin was his his father's friend, but Harry never saw him till his third year. Harry knew Mrs. Figg, of course, and he'd met Dedalus Diggle, but unless members of the original Order (the few who hadn't been killed or incapacitated) were keeping an eye on Harry before he went to school or during the summers, none of the others had any reason to see him. And Kingsley, as we see in "The Woes of Mrs. Weasley," wasn't a member of the original Order. So it seems that Kingsley knew James (possibly they went to school at approximately the same time) but not Harry. Sure, he would have seen Harry's photos in the Daily Prophet, but that's not the same as seeing him in person. So I think that Kingsley has just the word of the Order members who know Harry, chiefly Lupin, to go on. Alla quoted: > "Very clean, aren't they these muggles? said the witch called Tonks, who was looking around the kitchen with great interest. "My dad's Muggle born and he's right old slob. I suppose it varies, just like with wizards" - p.50 > Alla commented: > > OY Tonks, all muggles are slobs and that is based on your dad, who is not even a muggle, but muggle born? Prejudiced a bit, I say. > > What was the reaction you had about her dad after this paragraph? Did you have any? Carol responds: Well, actually Tonks's first reaction is to the extreme cleanliness of the house. (She prefers Harry's messy room to Petunia's sterile kitchen.) So she seems to be contrasting "these Muggles" with her Muggle-born (and Muggle-raised) father, the closest thing to a real Muggle that she personally knows. Obviously, neither she nor Hestia Jones, who's laughing at a potato peeler, have been in many Muggle houses. (Tonks would feel right at home in mine!) As for my reaction, I was curious about her parents and wondered whether we'd find out more about them (especially when I later learned that her mother was the sister of Narcissa and Bellatrix and burned off the family tapestry for marrying a Muggle-born), but introducing her father as "a right old slob" and her mother as a skilled housewife who can fold socks with a wand as she's packing merely sets them up as a very mismatched couple. (Tonks had earlier criticized her mother for naming her Nymphadora, but her cheerful talk about her mother's knack for packing indicated to me that they were on good terms--if not very much alike.) Alla quoted: > "Yeah, it does," said Tonks decisively. She screwed up her eyes in a strained expression as though she were struggling to remember something. A second later, her hair had turned bubble-gum pink. > **** > "I'm a metamorphmagus..... It means I can change my appearance at will" - p.52 > Alla commented: > > This description made me think that Tonks or any Metamorphmagus can change only to somebody whose appearance she already saw at some point and remembered, that she cannot just create the appearance out of nowhere. Thoughts? Carol responds: That wasn't my impression (especially after our glimpses of Teddy in DH; he's certainly not deliberately turning his hair turquoise because he's seen someone else do it). You seem to be taking "as thought she were struggling to remember something" more literally than I do. IMO, it's just a description of the sort of expression she's wearing, comparable to comparing Draco's gleeful expression to Christmas coming a month early (or Snape looking as if Christmas had been canceled). At any rate, we see her making funny noses, some like those of people Harry knows (but at one point, she looks like a female Dudley and Tonks doesn't know Dudley) but others merely described. (One of them spouts "a great deal of hair from each nostril, not, I hope, the nose of anyone Tonks has actually seen.) Neither the woman with iron grey hair that Tonks turns into when they ride the Knight Bus nor the old woman she becomes when she helps to escort Harry to Platform 9 3/4 seems to be based on anyone she's seen, or at least, there's no indication of that in the text. I think that, in contrast to Polyjuice, which enables a wizard to impersonate a real person, Wizard or Muggle, the people Tonks turns herself into are products of her imagination. We don't see her turning herself into a man, so I don't know whether that's possible. (Maybe she just feels more comfortable in a familiar body.) I think she chooses a form that suits the purpose, and since she's very businesslike (or "bossy," from Stan Shunpike's perspective) when she rides the Knight Bus, she makes herself look formidable. But she doesn't turn into, say, Neville's gran or McGonagall, both of whom might be recognized. Instead, she just chooses suitable facial features, hairstyle, and hair color. (I'm not sure whether she can also transfigure her clothes. I would think that most skilled wizards could do that, but we never see it done.) As for her hair in this scene, I think she likes the boyish (or punkish) spiky hair, but it's just the purple she doesn't like. (It makes her look "peaky.") I doubt that she's remembering someone with pink hair, spiky or otherwise, as she changes the color. Alla quoted: > "Come here boy," said Moody gruffly, beckoning Harry toward him with his wand. " I need to Disillusion you" - p.54 > Alla commented: > > It had been said in the past, I am sure, but when I read things like that I always think that these things are the reason why I like JKR's writing, even if it is not always perfect. > > This metaphor is so simple and still so cool to me. Doesn't it represent in a couple sentences what Harry will endure in the next three books? And of course there will be that specific disillusionment with Dumbledore. Beatiful. Carol responds: There's no question that Harry is headed for disillusionment with DD, as you say, but it doesn't relate to OoP or to Moody, who's the one who says he's going to "disillusion" Harry. I do think it's a play on words, just as "Apparition" as the noun form of "Apparate" is a play on words. So, for that matter, are Diagon Alley and Knockturn Alley, even though they don't have much to do with "diagonally" and "nocturnally." So even though I understand what you're saying, it doesn't work for me. (Now if Dumbledore had been the one to speak the line . . . .) What bothers me about the play on words in this instance is that the name of the spell and its effect are antithetical. Far from *dis*illusioning Harry, Mad-eye is "illusioning" him, turning him into an illusion, or, as the narrator puts it, a human chameleon. Turning him back into himself, or rather, restoring his appearance (it's a charm, not Transfiguration) removes the illusion. So it would make more sense to me if it were an Illusionment Charm and the countercharm was referred to as Disillusionment. (JKR could still keep the line; she'd just need to move it to the point when Moody removed the spell.) Carol, who also appreciates JKR's wordplay, just not this particular example (my favorite is the Griffin door [Gryffindor] knocker) From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 05:33:02 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 05:33:02 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182553 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nikkalmati" wrote: > What has me puzzled is why it took so long for Grindenwald to try to > take over the world. If we start his attempt in 1939, Grindenwald > and Dumbledore have not seen each other for say 95 years? They had > plans back when they were boys in about 1870. What was Grindenwald > doing all that time? 95 years seems a bit too much :-). Wasn't DD born in 1881? If so (I really should have checked it in the Lexicon, but never mind), DD and GG haven't seen each other for about 40 years, not 95 - sorry if I'm wrong :-). Anyway, 40 years is also a long time. What was GG doing? I suppose he went looking for the Elder wand first, then he started recruiting supporters, then building an army - I really don't know how much time things like this can take. Didn't it take LV more than 20 years to start the first war (I mean from the time he finished school)? Or am I mixing up something? zanooda, not very good with numbers ... From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 16 06:47:33 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:47:33 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182554 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Brenwen wrote: > > > > In DH - how did the sword of Gryffindor get from the hands of the > goblin Griphook [after the debacle at Gringotts Bank] back to the > sorting hat where Neville could grab it and decapitate Nagini? > > tubazrcool: > > > > I think it just disappeared ... like magic or something. > > > Carol responds: > > Yes, the answer is definitely magic of some sort. I think that the > Sword must have had a spell on it that caused it to come to a > Gryffindor "under conditions of need and valor," as DD tells Snape in > "The Prince's Tale" (DH Am. ed. 689). > It belongs to > Gryffindor House, and just as it came to Harry when he was facing the > Basilisk in CoS, brought by Fawkes, probably on instruction from > Dumbledore, it came to Neville when he bravely faced Voldemort without > a wand and under instructions from Harry to kill Nagini. Geoff: I read the COS incident differently. The sword was not inside the hat when Fawkes brought it. It appears that the Hat responded to a direct plea from Harry: '"Help me... help me..." Harry thought, his eyes screwed tight under the Hat. "Please help me!" There was no answering voice. Instead, the Hat contracted, as though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly. Something very hard and heavy thudded onto the top of Harry's head, almost knocking him out. Stars winking in front of his eyes, he grabbed the top of the Hat to pull it off and felt something long and hard beneath it. A gleaming silver sword had appeared inside the Hat.....' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.235 UK edition) To me, this implies that a deep magic had been invoked, not by Dumbledore and whether it was from the Hat or the sword -or both -I'm not sure but it certainly seems that the sword possesses powers of its own to give assistance. It's one of those very magical objects, like the Room of Requirement and the Hat which are appear to be sentient and react to need. From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Wed Apr 16 10:40:39 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:40:39 -0000 Subject: Harry and Voldermort's powers In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182555 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nirupama76" wrote: > > > Jayne wrote: > > > > Just delurking to make a comment here. > > Was Harry that talented anyway. He had a lot of courage and > > determination, but Hermonie was much cleverer than Harry in > picking > > up spells etc. > > Niru writes: > > Oh! Undoubtedly Hermione was cleverer. The cleverest witch Hogwarts > had seen in many, many years. But Harry wasn't bad himself. He > mastered the Patronus charm at the age of 13 (just an example). So > he is definitely powerful. Plus he's no dunce. If nothing, at least > his OWL results said that he is fairly talented. Mostly Es... and he > beat Hermione in DADA with an O. But, as far as what was most > important for Harry it was other things. Courage, determination, his > immense ability to love, etc. > Yes of course. I was not belittling Harry , just that there were others just as clever as him. > - Niru (who thinks Hermione's intelligence is so great it makes > people around her appear a little stupid even if they pretty smart > themselves) > Yes That's also true about Hermione. Jayne From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Wed Apr 16 10:55:38 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:55:38 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 3 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182556 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" wrote: > > "Yeah, I see what you mean Remus," said a bald black wizard standing > farthest back; he had a deep slow voice and wore a single gold hoop > in his ear. " He looks exactly like James" > "Except his eyes," said a wheezy voiced, silver haired wizard at the > back. "Lily's eyes" - p.47 > > > Alla: > > I have to say slightly off the above subject that it made me grin a bit that even though Harry was so desperate to leave from his Uncle's house that when the Oo P came to rescue him he was slightly nervous about them, until he heard Remus's voice who he trusted (as of course he should IMHO ). Jayne Whose favourite characeter as you know is Remus From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 16:18:52 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 16:18:52 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182557 Carol earlier: > > > > Yes, the answer is definitely magic of some sort. I think that the Sword must have had a spell on it that caused it to come to a Gryffindor "under conditions of need and valor," as DD tells Snape in "The Prince's Tale" (DH Am. ed. 689). > > > > > It belongs to Gryffindor House, and just as it came to Harry when he was facing the Basilisk in CoS, brought by Fawkes, probably on instruction from Dumbledore, it came to Neville when he bravely faced Voldemort without a wand and under instructions from Harry to kill Nagini. > > Geoff: > I read the COS incident differently. The sword was not inside the hat when Fawkes brought it. It appears that the Hat responded to a direct plea from Harry: > > '"Help me... help me..." Harry thought, his eyes screwed tight under the Hat. "Please help me!" > > There was no answering voice. Instead, the Hat contracted, as though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly. > > Something very hard and heavy thudded onto the top of Harry's head, almost knocking him out. Stars winking in front of his eyes, he grabbed the top of the Hat to pull it off and felt something long and hard beneath it. > > A gleaming silver sword had appeared inside the Hat.....' (COS "The Heir of Slytherin" p.235 UK edition) > > To me, this implies that a deep magic had been invoked, not by Dumbledore and whether it was from the Hat or the sword -or both -I'm not sure but it certainly seems that the sword possesses powers of its own to give assistance. It's one of those very magical objects, like the Room of Requirement and the Hat which are appear to be sentient and react to need. > Carol responds: And yet Fawkes brought Harry the Sorting Hat. Wouldn't he have done so on Dumbledore's orders rather than on his own initiative? Yes, Fawkes himself seems to have come to Harry's aid when Harry expressed loyalty to Dumbledore, and Fawkes alone put out the Basilisk's eyes and provided Phoenix tears to heal the Basilisk's bite, but Harry needed the hat with the sword magically concealed inside (and I mean neither visible nor tangible but nevertheless still there) to kill the Basilisk. otherwise, what was the point of bring what Diary!Tom scathingly calls "an old hat"? "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! A songbird and an old hat?" (SS Am. ed. 316). Unless Diary!Tom is mistaken, and JKR provides no alternative explanation, Dumbledore arranged these protections. Earlier, Dumbledore had told Harry (who was hiding under the Invisibility Cloak) that help would come at Hogwarts to those who asked for it, and, as you point out, Harry quite literally called "Help!" before the sword actually appeared. So Dumbledore must either have known that the sword was sometimes concealed in the Sorting Hat and would come out when Harry called for it, or arranged for it to do so (as it does again with Neville in DH--when Voldemort, of all people, summons the Sorting Hat. Surely, the Sword of Gryffindor is again concealed in it, this time by some power in the Sword itself). So even if Dumbledore (who, of course, was away from the school because Lucius Malfoy had bullied the Board of Governors) didn't arrange the spell that caused the sword to be concealed in--or come out of--the Sorting Hat, he seems to have known about it. Otherwise, it would have been pointless to tell Fawkes to take the Sorting Hat with him when he responded to Harry's defense of Dumbledore. ("You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber, Harry. Nothing but that could have brought Fawkes to you," 332.) Either way, it's magic. The Sword comes to Gryffindors in conditions of need and peril. Or, in the case of Ron rescuing Harry, need, peril, and chivalry--with a little help from the Slytherin headmaster of Hogwarts. And since the Sword and the Hat both belonged at one time to Godric Gryffindor, and the Hat, at least, is a sentient object, maybe there's some arrangement between them, originally set up by Gryffindor (who must also have arranged with the Goblin maker of the Sword to have it respond to Gryffindors in peril: As DD says, "Only a true Gryffindor could have pulled *that* out of the hat, Harry," 334). So, the Sword is magical and Dumbledore is familiar with the magic. And the magic relates to Gryffindors, not Goblins (or Slytherin soul bits), so Griphook is out of luck (as is Diary!Tom). It seems to me that Dumbledore, anticipating that Harry, as a Parselmouth, will find a way to get into the Chamber and that he will be in peril when he gets there, arranged for Fawkes to come to Harry when he expressed loyalty to Dumbledore and to take the Sorting Hat with him. Whether he himself hid the sword in the hat or whether he knew that Godric Gryffindor had arranged for it to appear there at need can't be determined from the evidence. But unless *Fawkes* knew that the Sword was in the Sorting Hat (or could be summoned from it at need), and Fawkes acted on his own initiative in bringing the Hat to Harry, Dumbledore must have arranged for him to do so (as Diary!Tom suggests, and DD himself implies when he tells Harry that help will come at Hogwarts to those who ask for it). Whether the Sword could be summoned without the Sorting Hat, I don't know. It certainly didn't come to Harry at Godric's Hollow when he was in dire peril from Nagini (and expected to find it at Bathilda's house). And Snape actually had to arrange circumstances of "need and peril" so that Harry or Ron could retrieve the Sword. (I think he knew that Ron had left the group; was Ron's role part of his original plan, or did he bring him into it when he saw him wandering in the forest?) Evidently, the sword only comes to Gryffindors via the Sorting Hat if the Gryffindor happens to be at Hogwarts. Neville doesn't even ask for help--he just draws the Sword of Gryffindor from the flaming depths of the Sorting Hat (which seems not to have been harmed by Voldie's spell). How did he know to look there? I don't think he knew the details of Harry's encounter with the Basilisk. I guess the only answer is, "It's magic." Carol, wondering whether JKR even thought about these details or was only going for excitement (and rewarding her characters for valor) From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Wed Apr 16 21:24:59 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:24:59 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182558 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Carol earlier: > > > > > > Yes, the answer is definitely magic of some sort. I think that the > Sword must have had a spell on it that caused it to come to a > Gryffindor "under conditions of need and valor," as DD tells Snape in > "The Prince's Tale" (DH Am. ed. 689). > > > > > > > > > It belongs to Gryffindor House, and just as it came to Harry when > he was facing the Basilisk in CoS, brought by Fawkes, probably on > instruction from Dumbledore, it came to Neville when he bravely faced > Voldemort without a wand and under instructions from Harry to kill Nagini. > > > > Geoff: > > I read the COS incident differently. The sword was not inside the > hat when Fawkes brought it. It appears that the Hat responded to a > direct plea from Harry: > > > > '"Help me... help me..." Harry thought, his eyes screwed tight under > the Hat. "Please help me!" > > > > There was no answering voice. Instead, the Hat contracted, as > though an invisible hand was squeezing it very tightly. > > > > Something very hard and heavy thudded onto the top of Harry's head, > almost knocking him out. Stars winking in front of his eyes, he > grabbed the top of the Hat to pull it off and felt something long and > hard beneath it. > > > > A gleaming silver sword had appeared inside the Hat.....' (COS "The > Heir of Slytherin" p.235 UK edition) > > > > To me, this implies that a deep magic had been invoked, not by > Dumbledore and whether it was from the Hat or the sword -or both -I'm > not sure but it certainly seems that the sword possesses powers of its > own to give assistance. It's one of those very magical objects, like > the Room of Requirement and the Hat which are appear to be sentient > and react to need. > > > Carol responds: > > And yet Fawkes brought Harry the Sorting Hat. Wouldn't he have done so > on Dumbledore's orders rather than on his own initiative? Yes, Fawkes > himself seems to have come to Harry's aid when Harry expressed loyalty > to Dumbledore, and Fawkes alone put out the Basilisk's eyes and > provided Phoenix tears to heal the Basilisk's bite, but Harry needed > the hat with the sword magically concealed inside (and I mean neither > visible nor tangible but nevertheless still there) to kill the > Basilisk. otherwise, what was the point of bring what Diary!Tom > scathingly calls "an old hat"? > > "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! A songbird and an old > hat?" (SS Am. ed. 316). Unless Diary!Tom is mistaken, and JKR provides > no alternative explanation, Dumbledore arranged these protections. Geoff: I still do not believe that Fawkes brought the Hat with the sword "magically concealed" inside. The quote I gave from COS suggested that when Harry called for help, the sword then appeared inside the Hat - where it could not have been previously hidden. My suggestion is that the Hat, being like the RoR, a magical object of immense age and using advanced magic, was able, for want of a better phrase to perform "inanimate Apparition" on another object and produce it out of a hat , in this case for Harry's benefit. Carol: > Earlier, Dumbledore had told Harry (who was hiding under the > Invisibility Cloak) that help would come at Hogwarts to those who > asked for it, and, as you point out, Harry quite literally called > "Help!" before the sword actually appeared. So Dumbledore must either > have known that the sword was sometimes concealed in the Sorting Hat > and would come out when Harry called for it, or arranged for it to do > so (as it does again with Neville in DH--when Voldemort, of all > people, summons the Sorting Hat. Surely, the Sword of Gryffindor is > again concealed in it, this time by some power in the Sword itself). Geoff: I think that I can see that Dumbledore could send Fawkes who has sensed Harry's loyalty and presumably conveyed this to him and, either Fawkes or Dumbledore knowing that the Hat possesses special powers, that gets sent along as well but Dumbledore can hardly know what problems Harry will face. Dumbledore, at this point, was not fully cogniscent of what or who Diary!Tom was. 'Dumbledore paused for a moment, marshalling his thoughts and then said, "Four years ago, I received what I considered certain proof that Voldemort had split his soul." "Where?" asked Harry. "How?" "You handed it to me Harry," said Dumbledore. "The diary, Riddle's diary, the one giving instructions on how to reopen the Chamber of Secrets." "I don't understand, sir," said Harry. "Well, although I did not see the Riddle who came out of the diary, what you described to me was a phenomenon I had never witnessed. A mere memory starting to act and think for itself? A mere memory, sapping the life out of the girl into whose hands it had fallen? No, something much more sinister had lived inside that book... a fragment of soul, I was almost sure of it. The diary had been a Horcrux...."' (COS "Horcruxes" pp.467/68 UK edition) This is Dumbledore, commenting in hindsight. He did not have all this information until after Harry had defeated Riddle and the basilisk and returned to the school. Carol: > So even if Dumbledore (who, of course, was away from the school > because Lucius Malfoy had bullied the Board of Governors) didn't > arrange the spell that caused the sword to be concealed in--or come > out of--the Sorting Hat, he seems to have known about it. Otherwise, > it would have been pointless to tell Fawkes to take the Sorting Hat > with him when he responded to Harry's defense of Dumbledore. Geoff: I read it that the Hat possessed enough sentience to be able to analyse Harry's need at that time and summon the Sword of Gryffindor to assist him when it became obvious that a weapon was needed - a weapon with great magic potential. I think that this was also the case in DH when Voldemort summons the Hat - possibly by a wordless 'Accio' and the Hat produces the sword for Neville as the most suitable piece of equipment for him at that point. Carol: > Either way, it's magic. The Sword comes to Gryffindors in conditions > of need and peril. Geoff: Agreed. But I don't think that the Hat would be restricted just to producing it. Although it would not normally be called on to use its powers in an emergency and it had been pursuing a quiet existence of the odd song and a sophisticated eeny-meeny-miny-mo once a year for rather a long period, I believe that it could help in other ways than just acting as a scabbard; we just don't see this because the help that is needed in both instances is met by the hat summoning the sword. From lothtm01 at hotmail.com Wed Apr 16 19:30:44 2008 From: lothtm01 at hotmail.com (Tiffany Lothamer) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:30:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Board of Governors (was: The Sword of Gryffindor) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182559 Carol: So even if Dumbledore (who, of course, was away from the school because Lucius Malfoy had bullied the Board of Governors) didn't arrange the spell that caused the sword to be concealed in--or come out of--the Sorting Hat, he seems to have known about it. Otherwise,it would have been pointless to tell Fawkes to take the Sorting Hat with him when he responded to Harry's defense of Dumbledore. ("You must have shown me real loyalty down in the Chamber, Harry. Nothing but that could have brought Fawkes to you," 332.) Tiffany Asks: What ever happened to the Board of Governors? I don't recall them being mentioned in any of the other books. I wonder what happened to them when Voldie was taking over Hogwarts. I can guess that they were "bullied" like the rest of the WW. Just a question I had while reading your interesting post on Gryffidors sword. ~~Tiffany Marie From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 16 22:11:48 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 22:11:48 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182560 --- "Carol" wrote: bboyminn: As usual, I'm off on some minor tangents, and while I'm not disputing Carol, I'm am questioning the exactness of her interpretation. > > > Carol responds: > > And yet Fawkes brought Harry the Sorting Hat. Wouldn't he > have done so on Dumbledore's orders rather than on his own > initiative?... but Harry needed the hat with the sword > magically concealed inside ... > bboyminn: Well, here is my first question, IS the Sword really IN the Hat? Or, is the Hat merely a transfer medium by which the Sword is drawn from it's current location to the person in need? I'm under the impression that the Sword of Gryffindor was, in a sense, lost. Not that it had been left in some unknown random location virtually anywhere in the wizard world. No, it may very well have been at Hogwarts, but that it had been stored away for so many centuries that its exact location was unknown. Keep in mind that the first we hear of the Sword is when it comes to Harry. No mention of a magnificent Sword on the wall in Dumbledore's office nor anywhere else in Hogwarts. It would have seemed, if it was in Dumbledore's office, noticing it would have been nice foreshadowing. So, I say...lost. > Carol continues: > > "This is what Dumbledore sends his defender! A songbird and > an old hat?" (SS Am. ed. 316). Unless Diary!Tom is mistaken, > and JKR provides no alternative explanation, Dumbledore > arranged these protections. > bboyminn: This is the next question, exactly how elaborate were Dumbledore's arrangements. Did he specifically plot and plan every aspect of the rescue by Fawkes, or did he just generally tell Fawkes to look after Harry? It seems extremely difficult for Dumbledore to have known Harry would need a sword. I'm more inclined to think that Dumbledore did NOT make any specific plans, but relied on Fawkes instinct to know in-the-moment what would benefit Harry. Fawkes of his own volition, brought the Sorting Hat to Harry because it was the only device that Fawkes knew of and had access to that might be able to draw some hope and assistance to Harry. The nature of the Sorting Hat, as I have describe it, seems more consistent with the overall story. Because the Hat and the Sword were Gryffindor's, they have an affinity that allows the Hat to bring the Sword regardless of where the Sword is or what restraining enchantments it might be under. Likely the Goblins would have made some effort to prevent the Sword from being Summoned or taken by similar magical methods. But those methods of protection would not have mattered to the Hat. The Hat and the Sword are connected by history and magic, and that overrides any restraining protection. It's sort of like a backdoor or an underground path between them, that allowed the Hat to draw the Sword to Neville even though the Sword was under Goblin protections. Now, this bring up the final question, can the Hat summon any device that it feels will be useful, or is it limited to summoning (or transferring) only the Sword to which it has a historical and magical connection? Personally, I say the Hat can only draw the Sword to it, but of course I'm speculating, but then isn't that what I'm always doing? One last comment, touching on some things Carol said that I have 'snipped'. Is the Sword sufficiently magical to have a degree of sentience or self-awareness similar to a Wand? Notice that the Sword is only drawn to Gryffindors who strongly display Gryffindor traits. Also notice that Dumbledore instructs Snape that Harry must obtain the Sword under conditions of 'need and valor'. That sound suspiciously like how a wand must be taken in order for it to switch its allegiance. To be the true 'master' of the Sword, you must obtain it in a way that is consistent with Gryffindor ideals. Only then will the Sword display its true magical abilities. What magical abilities you might ask? Well I speculate that under the right circumstance, the /magical/ Sword might have been able to be used as a wand to cast and focus spells if it what the fair Gryffindor needed at the time. Further, it may have been able to act as a shield against unfriendly spells. Of course, circumstances never present themselves in a way that allows us to see the full magical power of the Sword. But, whether I've seen it or not, I believe that it is there. Any thoughts on this??? Just rambling along. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 01:33:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 01:33:49 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182561 Geoff wrote: > I think that I can see that Dumbledore could send Fawkes who has sensed Harry's loyalty and presumably conveyed this to him and, either Fawkes or Dumbledore knowing that the Hat possesses special powers, that gets sent along as well but Dumbledore can hardly know what problems Harry will face. > > Dumbledore, at this point, was not fully cogniscent of what or who Diary!Tom was. Carol responds: True. But the sorting Hat is not sent to deal with Diary!Tom. It's sent to deal with Slytherin's monster, which DD must know, based on its powers of petrification and the necessity for a Parselmouth to open the Chamber, that the monster is a Basilisk. The diary's being a Horcrux is irrelevant at this point. In fact, DD doesn't even know about the diary at all. He only knows that the Heir of Slytherin, who has to be Riddle!Voldemort in some form, is again opening the Chamber of Secrets and again releasing the monster, which is Petrifying Muggle-borns and may kill one (as it killed Myrtle fifty years before). So DD sends the "songbird" Fawkes, who can help Harry fight the Basilisk (and heal Harry with his tears if he's bitten) and the Sword of Gryffindor, which can come to him via the Sorting Hat in conditions of need and peril (specifically if he asks or calls for help--"Help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it," as DD tells Harry before he leaves the school, having already set up the necessary protections, 264. He mentions loyalty to himself, the prerequisite for calling Fawkes, in the previous sentence.) So it doesn't really matter whether the sword is magically concealed in the hat, neither visible nor tangible, or whether the Hat somehow calls the Sword to appear. (Either way, it's like a Muggle magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat except that it's not an illusion. Was it placed in the hat by DD or was it in DD's office waiting to be summoned? Who knows?) It's the Sword, not the Hat, that's enchanted to help Gryffindors in need. Even so, DD can hardly ask Fawkes to carry the Sword of Gryffindor to Harry, so he asks him to carry the Sorting Hat, which will magically appear out of the hat when the need arises. Dumbledore is familiar with the magic and plans for Harry's use of it against Slytherin's monster, which he can hardly fight with a wand given that he's twelve years old and the most complicated defensive spell he knows is Expelliarmus. Again, Diary!Tom has nothing to do with it. The Chamber of Secrets is known to contain a monster, and, as far as DD knows, the monster (surely a Basilisk) is what Harry will have to fight. Carol, who thought there was some reference in FB to Phoenixes in relation to Basilisks but can't find it, only a reference to "the pure in heart," obviously meaning Harry, being encouraged by the Phoenix's song From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 17 05:59:20 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 05:59:20 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182562 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Geoff wrote: > > I think that I can see that Dumbledore could send Fawkes who > has sensed Harry's loyalty and presumably conveyed this to him and, > either Fawkes or Dumbledore knowing that the Hat possesses special > powers, that gets sent along as well but Dumbledore can hardly know > what problems Harry will face. > > > > Dumbledore, at this point, was not fully cogniscent of what or who > Diary!Tom was. > > Carol responds: > > True. But the sorting Hat is not sent to deal with Diary!Tom. It's > sent to deal with Slytherin's monster, which DD must know, based on > its powers of petrification and the necessity for a Parselmouth to > open the Chamber, that the monster is a Basilisk. > > The diary's being a Horcrux is irrelevant at this point. In fact, DD > doesn't even know about the diary at all. He only knows that the Heir > of Slytherin, who has to be Riddle!Voldemort in some form, is again > opening the Chamber of Secrets and again releasing the monster, which > is Petrifying Muggle-borns and may kill one (as it killed Myrtle fifty > years before). > > So DD sends the "songbird" Fawkes, who can help Harry fight the > Basilisk (and heal Harry with his tears if he's bitten) and the Sword > of Gryffindor, which can come to him via the Sorting Hat in conditions > of need and peril (specifically if he asks or calls for help--"Help > will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it," as DD tells > Harry before he leaves the school, having already set up the necessary > protections, 264. He mentions loyalty to himself, the prerequisite for > calling Fawkes, in the previous sentence.) Geoff: This firstly assumes that Dumbledore is aware of the fact that the Chamber of Secrets contains a basilisk. Does Dumbledore know that for a fact? People are being petrified - not killed, the latter being what you would expect from contact with one, of these creatures. Secondly, the diary is far from irrelevant to Harry; it is the major threat to him because of the appearance of Tom Riddle. It is the manifestation of Riddle which has drawn Ginny into the Chamber and, hence, Harry. The basilisk only attacks Harry on the instruction of Riddle's "image" and, as we see, it is only when Harry manages to destroy both the monster and the Horcrux that he is safe again. I believe we can only speculate as to the exact nature of the Hat's abilities. I think Steve, who replied after me last night, took a very similar line to mine. I think the main point of agreement is that the Hat possesses quite powerful magical abilities; precisely how these work out in practice is not laid out in full detail in the books, probably because this is not necessary to the development of the story. Geoff About to go to a foreign country (Wales!) for the weekend but hoping to keep up to date on a friend's English-speaking computer. :-) From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Thu Apr 17 08:36:26 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:36:26 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182563 Just going back to the original question re Sword. I have another one to ask. How exactly did Snape get the sword into the lake for Harry to see it. Surely he would have been seen if he had appeared there and put it in ? Could the Silver Doe have some how got it there. Also how did he know that Harry would find it. No one knew where they were hiding ? Jayne confused again From hickengruendler at yahoo.de Thu Apr 17 14:24:34 2008 From: hickengruendler at yahoo.de (hickengruendler) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 14:24:34 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182564 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jayne" wrote: > > Just going back to the original question re Sword. I have another one > to ask. How exactly did Snape get the sword into the lake for Harry to > see it. Surely he would have been seen if he had appeared there and put > it in ? > Could the Silver Doe have some how got it there. > Also how did he know that Harry would find it. No one knew where they > were hiding ? > > Jayne confused again > Hickengruendler: I can only guess about the first question. I think it's reasonable to assume that he put the Sword in the lake and then sent the Silver Doe for Harry. But the answer of the second question is in the book: Snape knew, where Harry and Hermione were hiding, because Phineas Nigellus (who was both in Hermione's handbag and the Headmaster's office), who overheard Hermione telling it Harry, told him. It's in the chapter with Snape's memories. And if you reread the beginning of the "SIlver DOe" chapter, you'll find, that Hermione indeed told Harry, that they were in the Forest of Dean. That's what Phineas heard and reported to Snape. From bboyminn at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 15:40:52 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:40:52 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182565 --- "Jayne" wrote: > > ... How exactly did Snape get the sword into the lake for Harry > to see it? Surely he would have been seen if he had appeared > there and put it in ? bboyminn; Why would Snape have been seen, he is in the woods a considerable distance from Harry, Ron, and Hermione's campsite? I'm not sure how far it was, but remember that Harry followed the Doe through the trees for a while, not a long while, but a while. > Jayne: > > Could the Silver Doe have some how got it there? bboyminn: All indications are that the Silver Doe was a Patronus which doesn't really have solid physical form, so I don't think the Dow could act on or affect material objects. > Jayne: > Also how did he know that Harry would find it. No one knew > where they were hiding? > > Jayne confused again. > bboyminn: Well, I don't think Snape did know with absolute certainty that Harry would find it, but the Silver Doe lead him right to it, and certainly Harry knew the appearance of the Silver Doe was an unusual occurrence. Further, he suspected that the Doe lead him to that location for a reason, so naturally, he it going to have a good look around. I think Snape thought there was a high probability that Harry would find it, but he didn't know for certain. If Harry hadn't found it, Snape would have merely tried again. One final thought, we find out later that Snape, like Voldemort, can fly without a broom. So, Snape doesn't have to be hiding behind a tree observing them as Harry suspects. Snape could have been a distance away hovering in the air watching them. Once he was sure Harry had the Sword, he left. Just a few thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 18:02:01 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:02:01 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182566 Geoff wrote: > This firstly assumes that Dumbledore is aware of the fact that the Chamber of Secrets contains a basilisk. Does Dumbledore know that for a fact? People are being petrified - not killed, the latter being what you would expect from contact with one, of these creatures. > > Secondly, the diary is far from irrelevant to Harry; it is the major threat to him because of the appearance of Tom Riddle. It is the manifestation of Riddle which has drawn Ginny into the Chamber and, hence, Harry. The basilisk only attacks Harry on the instruction of Riddle's "image" and, as we see, it is only when Harry manages to destroy both the monster and the Horcrux that he is safe again. Carol responds: I didn't say that the diary was irrelevant to Harry. I said that DD didn't know about it and that the protections he arranges for Harry are against the monster in the Chamber (which is probably a Basilisk, the only monster in FB capable of Petrifying a victim, so far as I'm aware). Fawkes, too, is perfect protection against a Basilisk since Phoenix tears are the only antidote for Basilisk venom. My point, then, is that DD expected Harry, who speaks Parseltongue, to open the Chamber of secrets, as Tom Riddle, the Heir of Slytherin, had done before him. (See his words to Harry in Hagrid's hut quoted in my previous post Diary!Tom's words about DD sending his defender a songbird and an old hat.) And Dumbledore obviously expected Harry to encounter a monster there, the same monster that had originally been released (and controlled) by Tom Riddle. DD tells McGonagall early on that he knows *who* is opening the chamber of Secrets (meaning Riddle!Voldemort in some form)--the only question is how (he doesn't know about the diary). DD also knows that only a Parselmouth can control a Basilisk and that a Basilisk can both Petrify and kill its victims without leaving a mark. It stands to reason, then, that DD either knows or strongly suspects that the monster is a Basilisk. The protections that he provides Harry, a Phoenix and a sword that comes out of a hat (the hat itself being, of course, no protection) are exactly suited to fighting a Basilisk, which twelve-year-old Harry could not have done with his wand. Dumbledore could not have anticipated the presence of Diary!Tom, and consequently he provides no protections against him. Luckily for Harry, the weapon he needed to destroy the diary (which of course he didn't know was a Horcrux) was at hand after he killed the Basilisk--a Basilisk fang. I snipped the part about the Sorting Hat's powers since IMO they are not relevant here--the hat merely has the "brains" of the Founders and therefore the ability to use Legilimency to determine which House a student belongs in. I doubt that the *Hat* summoned the Sword of Gryffindor. It's the sword itself that came to Harry out of the hat when it was summoned. Whether DD put it there or whether he knew that Godric Gryffindor had put a spell on the hat so that the sword could come out of it at need, I have no idea. But it's the magic of the sword itself, which can be taken and used by a Gryffindor under certain conditions, need and valor being the most important, that I'm concerned with here, along with Dumbledore's knowledge of the sword's magic and the probable nature of the monster that Harry would be facing as he would have been thoroughly familiar with the properties of Basilisks as described in FB. (He probably knew that Harry wouldn't be able to control the Basilisk, Parseltongue or no, and I imagine that he had instructed Fawkes to blind the basilisk so that it couldn't kill Harry that way. Either that or Fawkes is one smart bird, on the same wavelength as Dumbledore, and DD relied on Fawkes's intelligence and instincts to protect Harry in any way he could.) I forgot to mention that Fawkes is also Harry's (and Ron's, ginny's, and Lockhart's) transportation out of the Chamber, so the Phoenix's ability to carry heavy loads using its tali feathers was part of the plan as well. (Fawkes could not, however, carry the Sword of Gryffindor in that same way. He could, however, carry the Sorting Hat, which either contained the weapon he needed to kill the Basilisk (or some other monster with Basilisklike properties if such a creature exists) or could be used to magically summon that weapon. Carol, noting that neither Manticores nor Chimaeras can Petrify their victims or be controlled by a Parselmouth, which means that the monster has to be a Basilisk From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 18:39:47 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 18:39:47 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182567 Jayne wrote: > > Just going back to the original question re Sword. I have another one to ask. How exactly did Snape get the sword into the lake for Harry to see it. Surely he would have been seen if he had appeared there and put it in ? Carol responds: Snape is a highly gifted and powerful wizard, and I'm sure that he had no trouble unfreezing the frozen pond and sending the sword there with a banishing Charm (the opposite of a Summoning Charm), and freezing the lake again. And, of course, he would have performed the spells nonverbally so that he could not be heard. As for how he could do it without being seen, we know that Dumbledore can make himself invisible without an Invisibility Cloak. Perhaps Snape can do that, too, given that he can fly without a broom. at any rate, he can certainly perform a Disillusionment Charm on himself (even crabbe and goyle have learned to perform that spell), and in the darkness of the forest, he could easily watch unseen from the narrow gap between the two oaks that Ron points to. I have no doubt that Snape could also Disapparate silently when he saw that Ron had rescued Harry and retrieved the sword. BTW, Snape would have known through Phineas Nigellus that Ron had left the group. (The conversation at the end of "The Prince's Tale" indicates that they've discussed the situation before; they're only waiting for Phineas Nigellus to reveal the location. Snape has already made his plan.) I wonder whether he spotted Ron trying to return and worked him into the plan or whether Ron's following Harry and the Patronus was just coincidence. Snape must surely have seen him and wanted him to rejoin the group even if he didn't realize that Ron would need to rescue Harry (who ought to have known that the Horcrux won't want him to find the Sword of Gryffindor!). Carol, wondering at what point Snape Disapparated and how much he heard and saw From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 19:58:50 2008 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 19:58:50 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumd question (Snape/Lilly) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182568 Ok so we know that Snape's Patronus is a doe, which we find out in DH. But why does it seem to be common knowledge(to Harry, DD, and everyone on this board but me) that Lilly's was a doe as well? I do not remember this anywhere in the books. (now I am not claiming to know all from the books...lol) But if someone could please let me know so i can look for it and read it myself. (though I guess I could find it mysely during the reread I plan to do of the series again soon...but who has the patience for that? lol) Thanks to anyone that can help. T :-) From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Thu Apr 17 20:29:59 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:29:59 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumd question (Snape/Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182569 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > Ok so we know that Snape's Patronus is a doe, which we find out in DH. > But why does it seem to be common knowledge(to Harry, DD, and everyone > on this board but me) that Lilly's was a doe as well? I do not remember > this anywhere in the books. (now I am not claiming to know all from the > books...lol) But if someone could please let me know so i can look for > it and read it myself. (though I guess I could find it mysely during > the reread I plan to do of the series again soon...but who has the > patience for that? lol) Thanks to anyone that can help. > > > T :-) > Hi I thought we only found that out in Snape's memories in DH. I don't remember it being said anywhere else. It's a very good question to ask. Hope others can help more than me Jayne From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Thu Apr 17 20:33:32 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:33:32 -0000 Subject: Remus and Patronus Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182570 Talking of Patronus's. Lupin taught Harry to produce a patronus. Do we ever find out what Lupin's was. I don't remember ever seeing it in canon . Please help Thanks Jayne Asking odd questions again From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Thu Apr 17 20:41:11 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 20:41:11 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182571 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Geoff: > > This firstly assumes that Dumbledore is aware of > > Does the fact that the Chamber of Secrets contains a > > basilisk. Dumbledore know that for a fact? People are > > being petrified - not killed, the latter being what > > you would expect from contact with one, of these > > creatures. > > Secondly, the diary is far from irrelevant to Harry; > > it is the major threat to him because of the appearance > > of Tom Riddle. It is the manifestation of Riddle which > > has drawn Ginny into the Chamber and, hence, Harry. > > The basilisk only attacks Harry on the instruction of > > Riddle's "image" and, as we see, it is only when Harry > > manages to destroy both the monster and the Horcrux > > that he is safe again. > > Carol: > I didn't say that the diary was irrelevant to Harry. Geoff: True, but you did write "The diary's being a Horcrux is irrelevant at this point." To which I replied "the diary is far from irrelevant to Harry". Harry is very soon made to realise that the diary constitutes a grave danger to him in the form of the memory image of Tom Riddle. The fact that it is a Horcrux - which Harry doesn't know about - but which in hindsight becomes known makes it probably the most serious threat to him up to this point in time; one which nearly proves final. Therefore, I consider that the fact that the diary is a Horcrux is very relevant, even if not spelt out in those words. Carol: > Fawkes, too, is perfect protection against a Basilisk > since Phoenix tears are the only antidote for Basilisk > venom. > My point, then, is that DD expected Harry, who speaks > Parseltongue, to open the Chamber of secrets, as Tom > Riddle, the Heir of Slytherin, had done before him. > And Dumbledore obviously expected Harry to encounter > a monster there, the same monster that had originally > been released (and controlled) by Tom Riddle. Geoff: And if Harry had not found the entrance to the Chamber? What then? Carol: > I snipped the part about the Sorting Hat's powers since > IMO they are not relevant here--the hat merely has > the "brains" of the Founders and therefore the ability > to use Legilimency to determine which House a > student belongs in. Geoff: This brings up a thought which came to me earlier today after my last post. There has been much talk of a link between the Hat and the sword of Gryffindor. One thing which has been exercising me is the fact that the Hat should be impartial and without bias when deciding to which house new pupils should be allocated. So, this begs the question: if someone in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw or - heaven forbid - Slytherin finds themselves in a situation of calling for help, how does the Hat respond? One for the academics. Geoff - practising his welsh for the weekend. Cymru am byth? Nos da. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 21:44:45 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:44:45 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182572 Carol earlier: > > I didn't say that the diary was irrelevant to Harry. > > Geoff: > True, but you did write "The diary's being a Horcrux is irrelevant at this point." To which I replied "the diary is far from irrelevant to Harry". Harry is very soon made to realise that the diary constitutes a grave danger to him in the form of the memory image of Tom Riddle. Carol again: Sorry if my meaning was unclear. But the diary's being a Horcrux is relevant to HBP and DH; CoS can be read and understood with Diary!Tom as a mere memory with the power to possess the reader of the diary. But my point, to rieiterate, is that DD did not know about the diary. Consequently, the protections he provided for Harry (the only person other than the Heir of Slytherin, or whoever the Heir was possessing, who could open the Chamber of Secrets) were therefore designed to protect against the monster (which, as I've already argued, had to be a Basilisk) and not against a Horcrux or some other form of Voldemort. Yes, the diary was dangerous, but how was DD supposed to know that when he didn't even know that the diary existed, or that Lucius Malfoy had put it in Ginny's cauldron and that Diary!Tom was using it to control her and Petrify the "Mudbloods"? DD knew that the CoS had been opened and who had opened it (but not how). He had (as Ive argued) a very good idea of what the Chamber contained. He knew that Harry had been falsely suspected of being the Heir of Slytherin and that HRH had gone after "Snape" the previous year to protect the Sorceror's Stone. Had DD not been reasonably certain that Harry and friends would behave in a similar fashion regarding the CoS (even if Ginny hadn't been involved and Hermione Petrified), there would have been no point in his advice about loyalty to himself (which summons Fawkes) and help always coming at Hogwarts to those who ask for it, which relates to the Sword of Gryffindor. Even if DD had known about the diary and suspected that it was a Horcrux, the Sword of Gryffindor at that point could *not* have been used to destroy the Horcrux as it had not yet absorbed Basilisk venom. It was, however, a suitable weapon to use against a Basilisk (especially after that monster had been blinded by Fawkes)--much more suitable than a wand for a kid whose knowledge of defensive spells was extremely limited at that point. > Geoff: > And if Harry had not found the entrance to the Chamber? What then? Carol responds: We'd have had no story or rather a very different story. Diary!Tom would have succeeded in draining Ginny's soul and would have left her to die in the Chamber of Secrets. I suppose he would have gone to rescue his other self, Vapor!mort, in Albania and they would have merged. IOW, DD could not open the Chamber himself. Harry, as a Parselmouth, not only could but did. And Dumbledore, even though he didn't know about the diary Horcrux (though he knew that Voldemort was involved in some way) was counting on him--and encouraging him--to do it. He was also "handing him weapons" so that when the time came, he would not face the monster unarmed and unaided. (What he expected Harry to do if he encountered some form of Voldemort, I don't know. As I said, he didn't know about the diary, and the Horcruxes he knew about--ring, locket, cup--could not have been used to open the chamber. I doubt very much that he was deliberately using Harry to create a weapon that could be used in future to destroy Horcruxes. He was merely providing him with the best protection available against the danger he did know of, the Basilisk, short of being there himself. > Geoff: > This brings up a thought which came to me earlier today > after my last post. There has been much talk of a link > between the Hat and the sword of Gryffindor. One thing > which has been exercising me is the fact that the Hat > should be impartial and without bias when deciding to > which house new pupils should be allocated. So, this > begs the question: if someone in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw > or - heaven forbid - Slytherin finds themselves in > a situation of calling for help, how does the Hat respond? > > One for the academics. Carol (who is or was an academic ) responds: I'm not sure that the Hat itself has powers to help students in peril. It didn't come to Harry on its own; it was brought by Fawkes, almost certainly on DD's orders because he knew that the sword would come out of it if a Gryffindor called for help "under conditions of need and valor"--but only if the hat was actually in reach. IOW, it's not as if the hat, sitting on its shelf in DD's office, heard and responded to Harry's call for help, any more than it flew to Neville in the Battle of Hogwarts (it was summoned, ironically, by LV himself, who should have known better--or maybe not, since Diary!Tom didn't survive to tell his alter ego the details of the previous encounter). The Sword of Gryffindor, in contrast, has been enchanted to help Gryffindors specifically, and the only student who could enter the Chamber of Secrets (with or without his friends) was a Gryffindor, as were his friends, and (IMO) DD designed his protections (not a songbird and an old hat but a songbird--whose song instills courage in the pure of heart, not to mention his other magical properties, all relevant to protecting a wizard battling a Basilisk--and a magical sword that could be pulled from the hat by a courageous and imperiled Gryffindor--with that in mind. In theory, a Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff in trouble might have been able to summon *Fawkes* to help them by expressing loyalty to Dumbledore, but their respective House artifacts, a cup and a diadem, wouldn't have been much help even if they hadn't been Horcruxes and even if DD knew that the diadem was at Hogwarts. I doubt that a Slytherin student of Harry's era would express loyalty to DD, so Fawkes wouldn't help them, with or without a Sorting Hat. I imagine, for example, that Montague, trapped in the broken Vanishing Cabinet, called for help a few times. (Maybe that's how he was able to escape despite the anti-apparition spells on Hogwarts, but the protective magic and the anti-Apparition spells would have worked against each other, landing him in a toilet with rather severe PTSS. ) It just occurred to me--Draco was also in trouble, terrible trouble, in HBP. No one entered Hogwarts to murder him, though, and when Harry's ill-judged use of Sectumsempra left Draco lying in a pool of his own blood, the former Ravenclaw Moaning Myrtle called for help, which arrived in the form of Severus Snape, the Slytherin HoH. Had he been following Draco, or did Hogwarts itself send the one person who knew the countercurse that could save Draco? Both Snape and DD talk about protections on the castle. Of course, they don't protect Fred (no longer a student, but that's probably irrelevant) or Cedric (who's not in the castle or on the grounds when he dies), but until the Battle of Hogwarts, no student actually dies there. What exactly are those protections and what do they protect against? (Not cruel detentions by Umbridge or the Carrows, obviously.) Carol,who would have liked to know what magical powers the Hufflepuff cup possessed before it was Horcruxified From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 22:37:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:37:08 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumb question (Snape/Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182573 Tandra wrote: > > > > Ok so we know that Snape's Patronus is a doe, which we find out in DH. > > But why does it seem to be common knowledge (to Harry, DD, and everyone on this board but me) that Lilly's was a doe as well? I do not remember this anywhere in the books. Thanks to anyone that can help. Jayne responded: > I thought we only found that out in Snape's memories in DH. I don't remember it being said anywhere else. Carol responds: The only place in which it's explicitly stated that Lily's Patronus is a doe is Harry's remark to Voldemort during his Snape vindication speech near the end of the Battle of Hogwarts, "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mother's, because he loved her for nearly all of his life, from the time when they were children" (DH Am. ed. 740). No one has in fact told Harry that his mother's Patronus is a doe. He has seen the doe Patronus once without knowing who cast it, he has seen Snape cast it in the Pensieve memory as proof of his devotion to Lily's memory (DD, it seems, has never seen it before but instantly understands that it symbolizes Lily), and he (Harry) knows because of Tonks that a Patronus can change (presumably Snape's was different before Lily's death, assuming that he could already cast one, and if Umbridge could, I daresay Snpe could). Harry, then, is drawing an inference that he presents as fact. Since JKR gives us no other explanation for DD's ability to associate Snape's Patronus with Lily, Harry is probably correct. DD would have known Lily's Patronus because she would have used it as a member or the original Order of the Phoenix to send messages. Snape, in any case, expects him to recognize it. Snape's doe Patronus obviously represents Lily, whom he idealizes as pure and beautiful and powerful, all traits that we see in the bright and beautiful Patronus whose dazzling light hurts Harry's eyes. But what would it represent if Lily cast it? Usually, a Patronus, or protective spirit, represents someone other than the caster: Harry's represents James, Snape's represents Lily, Tonks's new Patronus represents Lupin, Hermione's otter seems to represent Ron, and so forth. Fortunately for Snape, Lily's Patronus (assuming that Harry is right) was not a stag, representing James (whose Animagus form is a stag), but it could (ironically for poor Severus) suggest that she is James's perfect mate, especially if his Patronus matched his Animagus form rather than reflecting some other person. (We don't see the Patronus form of any Animagus, unfortunately, so there's no way to test the hypothesis.) To reiterate, Harry is drawing an inference rather than repeating a fact that he has been told. He is probably correct, but it's possible that Snape's Patronus simply symbolizes his idealized Lily without ever having been Lily's own. Either way, the doe Patronus matches Harry's stag Patronus, an irony of which Snape is probably painfully aware. In another post, Jayne wrote: Talking of Patronus's. Lupin taught Harry to produce a patronus. Do we ever find out what Lupin's was. I don't remember ever seeing it in canon . Please help Carol responds: We never learn the Patronus form of any of the Marauders. Lupin apparently casts a Patronus early in PoA, but Harry is unconscious at the time, and Hermione describes it only as "a silvery thing" that "shot of [Lupin's] wand (PoA Am. ed. 85). In teaching Harry to cast a Patronus, he does not cast one himself. On a sidenote, it's possible that Patronuses generally move so fast that their form is unrecognizable. Harry sees DD cast one to send a message to Hagrid in GoF but it appears only as "something silvery" that "streak[s] away through the trees like a ghostly bird" (GoF Am. ed. 560). Similarly, Harry casts a corporeal Patronus in front of the whole school in PoA when Draco and his friends disguise themselves as Dementors, yet two years later at the formative meeting of the DA in OoP, everyone seems surprised that he can cast a Patronus. Earlier in the same book, Lupin, who saw him cast the Patronus at the Quidditch match and referred to it, in Harry's hearing only, as "quite some Patronus," asks him what form his Patronus takes as a security question, something that only Harry would know. I guess we're supposed to assume that the rest of the spectators only saw something big and silver hurtling toward the "Dementors." Carol, resisting the alternate explanation that JKR simply forgot or neglected to check her canon "facts" Thanks Jayne Asking odd questions again From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 23:28:43 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 23:28:43 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumd question (Snape/Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182574 > Tandra: > Ok so we know that Snape's Patronus is a doe, which we find out in DH. > But why does it seem to be common knowledge(to Harry, DD, and everyone > on this board but me) that Lilly's was a doe as well? zgirnius: Within the books, the only reason we have to believe that Lily's Patronus was a doe, is that Harry says so to Voldemort in "The Flaw in the Plan". > DH: "You never say Snape cast a Patronus, did you, Riddle? > "Snape's Patronus was a doe," said Harry, "the same as my mother's, > becaue he loved her for nearly all of his life, from the time when > they were children." zgirnius: The question of how Harry knew this, is not answered in the books. A couple of reasonable suggestions could be that Harry worked it out using logic - he knew Snape loved Lily, he knew Snape's Patronus was a doe, and he knew that Lily loved James, a stag Animagus. Or perhaps even, having worked out this possibility thgouth logic, he remembered the same of familiarity he had felt when he first encountered the doe, and decided this was because it represented his mother. Rowling has, I believe, also confirmed that Lily's Patronus was a doe, and this represented her love for James, in interviews. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 03:48:44 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 03:48:44 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumd question (Snape/Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182575 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Zara" wrote: > A couple of reasonable suggestions could be that Harry worked it out > using logic - he knew Snape loved Lily, he knew Snape's Patronus was > a doe, and he knew that Lily loved James, a stag Animagus. Or perhaps > even, having worked out this possibility thgouth logic, he remembered > the same of familiarity he had felt when he first encountered the > doe, and decided this was because it represented his mother. zanooda: It's probably a combination of both :-). The logical approach by itself doesn't prove that Lily's Patronus was a doe, it only proves that Snape's doe somehow represents Lily, like Carol wrote in the previous post. I think that maybe Harry saw Lily's doe Patronus when he was a baby, and remembered it on a subconscious level. That's why the Silver Doe felt so familiar to him. He didn't remember it was his mother's Patronus right there in the forest, but later, after seeing Snape's memories, he put two and two together. It's a possibility, anyway :-). On a side note - after his trip to the afterworld Harry says many other things that were never stated in the book before - all this stuff about who is the master of the Elder wand etc. I guess we are supposed to take everything Harry said during his last confrontation with LV as a truth :-). From peggy_hart at yahoo.com Thu Apr 17 21:05:09 2008 From: peggy_hart at yahoo.com (peggy_hart) Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:05:09 -0000 Subject: Ok this may be a dumb question (Snape/Lilly) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182576 > Tandra wrote: > > Ok so we know that Snape's Patronus is a doe, which we find out > in DH. But why does it seem to be common knowledge(to Harry, DD, > and everyone on this board but me) that Lilly's was a doe as well? > I do not remember this anywhere in the books. Peggy responds: I don't think this is stated any where as fact, but I believe the assumption is that that because James' patronus was a stag, that Lilly - as his wife - would have a patronus as a doe. From iam.kemper at gmail.com Fri Apr 18 04:51:11 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:51:11 -0000 Subject: Snape's Dementor lesson was: a dumb question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182577 > Jayne: > I thought we only found that out in Snape's memories in DH. I don't > remember it being said anywhere else. > Carol responded: > The only place in which it's explicitly stated that Lily's Patronus is > a doe is Harry's remark to Voldemort during his Snape vindication > speech near the end of the Battle of Hogwarts, "Snape's Patronus was a > doe, the same as my mother's, because he loved her for nearly all of > his life, from the time when they were children" (DH Am. ed. 740). Kemper now: I agree with Carol's post. I wonder: Did Snape not want to perform a patronus in front of his class (especially Harry)? or Did Snape truly have a better way of dealing with Dementors? During the Battle of Hogwart's we only see Patroni being cast against Dementors. Unfortunately, this could be because those performing the Patroni who were also Snape's DADA students (Seamus, Ernie, for sure and Luna most likely) no longer trusted Snape's instruction having killed Dumbledore. I don't have my book in front of me (someone's borrowing it), but does Hermione use a Patronus in the Battle? If so, that may suggest that Snape's lesson was not as effective as the Patronus. I see Hermione's character utilizing a skill/spell if she finds it effective regardless of whom taught it to her. Kemper, who would've enjoyed reading about that lesson From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 18 18:43:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:43:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Dementor lesson was: a dumb question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182578 Carol earlier: > > The only place in which it's explicitly stated that Lily's Patronus is a doe is Harry's remark to Voldemort during his Snape vindication speech near the end of the Battle of Hogwarts, "Snape's Patronus was a doe, the same as my mother's, because he loved her for nearly all of his life, from the time when they were children" (DH Am. ed. 740). > > Kemper now: > I agree with Carol's post. Carol responds: Thanks :-) Kemper: > I wonder: > Did Snape not want to perform a patronus in front of his class (especially Harry)? or > Did Snape truly have a better way of dealing with Dementors? Carol responds: It could be both. Now, certainly, Snape's Patronus would be effective against Dementors. It's beautiful and powerful and he can sustain it. *JKR* doesn't want to reveal it too early so she doesn't have him cast it, but we can only guess about Snape's motivations. His job is to teach the students DADA, and I think he is really trying to do so, but he might have other reasons for not teaching the Patronus charm to his NEWT DADA students. After all, it's a difficult spell which Harry only mastered under special conditions (private instruction from Lupin and the good luck of having a Dementor Boggart), and he may know (or guess) that Harry has already taught it to his DA students. However, as Harry points out to the DA members in OoP, it's one thing to cast a Patronus in a room full of fellow students and quite another to cast one when you're facing an actual Dementor. (The whole concept of the spell--thinking of a happy memory when the Dementor is sucking the happiness out of you--would indeed make it almost impossible for many students to cast.) Since Snape is unaffected by the Dementor that escorts Fudge to Fake!Moody's office (where it immediately sucks Barty Jr.'s soul) and Fudge, too, is unaffected--he can actually give the Dementors instructions and have them obey him--there must really be a better defense against Dementors, one that Harry has not mastered and would vehemently reject--Occlumency. Kemper: > During the Battle of Hogwart's we only see Patroni being cast against Dementors. Unfortunately, this could be because those performing the Patroni who were also Snape's DADA students (Seamus, Ernie, for sure and Luna most likely) no longer trusted Snape's instruction having killed Dumbledore. Carol: True, they would trust Harry and not Snape, but Luna is a year younger and would not have been in NEWT DADA with Snape, so the Patronus is the only defense she would know. And if the defense that snapt recommended was Occlumency, none of them would know that, either. Kemper: > I don't have my book in front of me (someone's borrowing it), but does Hermione use a Patronus in the Battle? If so, that may suggest that Snape's lesson was not as effective as the Patronus. I see Hermione's character utilizing a skill/spell if she finds it effective regardless of whom taught it to her. > > Kemper, who would've enjoyed reading about that lesson > Carol responds: If the defense Snape recommended as the best defense was Occlumency, I doubt that he used the lesson to teach it. He was probably aiming his remarks at Harry, whom he still wanted to "shut his mouth and close his mind" (quoting from memory here). As for Hermione's casting a Patronus in the Battle of Hogwarts, both she and Ron try and fail: "[Harry] saw Ron's silver terrier burst into the air, flicker feebly, and expire; he saw hermione's otter twist in midair and fade; and his own wand trembled in his hand, and he almost welcomed the oncoming oblivion, the promise of nothing, of no feeling" (649). But Harry is feeling despair at this point, feeling responsible for Fred's death and fearing that Hagrid is dead, too, and Hermione's Patronus is weaker than Harry's, as we see in "The Muggle-born Registration Commission," and she has trouble sustaining it. It disappears with a pop when Ron informs them that the Ministry have discovered the hole in Umbridge's office door and know that intruders in the building (DH am. ed 264). Ernie, Luna, and Seamus (who only attended on DA lesson but managed to discover that his Patronus was "something hairy, Harry") must have been filled with excitement and adrenaline, and since they were all acting together and they don't share Harry's (or Ron's or Hermione's) despair, they have no difficulty conjuring theirs (self-doubt might have been Hermione's enemy in the MoM and again in this battle--who knows?). Harry manages to cast his Patronus at this point with "the greatest effort it had ever cost him" after Luna encourages him to think of something happy ("'We're all still here,' she whispered, 'we're still fighting. Come on, now. . . ,'" 649). Maybe Luna is naturally resistant to despair. Anyway, it seems that Snape is right--Patronuses don't always work, and the despair generated by the Dementors make a spell based on happy memories very difficult to cast against them most of the time. (Later, Harry is protected from despair by the Resurrection Stone, or rather by the company of his beloved dead. I think he would have given up and yielded to the Dementors if he hadn't remembered the Snitch, 698.) So, whatever the defense that Snape recommends against Dementors i, it must be a protection against despair that works for him. And, given that he can defend himself against LV's invasive Legilimency using Occlumency and that the Dementors also invade the mind, causing their victims to relive their worst memories and yield to despair, I think that Occlumency is what he uses himself and recommends, specifically, to Harry. But, yes. He probably doesn't want Harry to see his Patronus, either. A shame. It might have been all the proof that HRH needed that Snape was on their side. Carol, thinking that Seamus's "hairy" Patronus must be the boar and Ernie's the fox, and wondering why either of them would have those particular Patroni From catlady at wicca.net Sun Apr 20 01:43:25 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 01:43:25 -0000 Subject: Albus&Gellaert/Merope&Voldemort/Albus's nose/Y Voldemort's Power/A &G Again Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182579 Phlytie and Blinky Elves asked questions after the Discussion of Chapter 18 in : << 9. This is the only place where we see Dumbledore interacting with Grindelwald. Did you see enough, were there enough hints to indicate that Dumbledore may have loved Grindelwald for more than just his mind? What about those five years it took DD to finally confront GG? Did you think DD was gay and in love with GG after this chapter? >> After the severe disappointment of Remus and Tonks, I thought that Rowling had deliberately created a fictional world with no gay people in it. So as I grinned over young Albus's middle of the night owl letter to young Gellaert (it made me remember being young myself), I thought 'How can it be that Rowling doesn't realize how close this depiction is to a romantic (not merely intellectual) passion? It's a gift on a silver platter for the slash writers." At the same time, and even more so when Aberforth explained it all, I was thinking that this love of baby sister Arianna is starting to verge on incestuous pedophilia. It was a relief when Herself announced that Albus was gay (instead of in love with Arianna). Meanwhile, I want to know what Gellaert did to be expelled from Durmstrang, and how evil he actually was at the time. I think he might have been not all that evil at that time, and gradually gotten more and more evil. On the other tentacle, could he have been a deceptive psychopath just like young Riddle, who also charmed adults and classmates, except without the excessive fear of death? Young Riddle seems to have succeeded in concealing that his true desire was to kill rather than to rule. If Grindelwald was a deceptive psychopath whose desire was to rule, killing only a means to that end, would that have been just as evil as Riddle? Niru wrote in : << If [Merope] had lived, would Tom have become Voldemort? >> I am sure that Tom was born a psychopath. Recall Mrs Cole the orphanage manager's account: as a little baby, he rarely made any noise and he disliked being cuddled. That orphanage was not a wonderful place, but it wasn't bad enough to make a normal baby act like a psychopath before he's six months old. That orphanage allowed the children to have toys, and even pets (the murdered rabbit), and took them on an annual outing to someplace (the seaside in the example we saw) that the staff thought would be fun for them. When they could instead have taken the children on an annual outing to visit a prison and observe the fate that awaited them if they were disobedient. It seems to me that, for the most part, any difference would have been if Merope had lived to raise him in the wizarding community. I think the only difference it would have made if Merope had lived to raise him as a Muggle beggar would have been that he might not have been so very terrified of death. Seeking earthly immortality is not an inherent part of psychopathy. If he had been raised in the wizarding world, there would have been adults around who should have noticed what he was doing with his underage magic and at least spanked him for it, maybe even be able to bind his magic in some way so that he couldn't do it without permission, or it would burn him when he did it, or something. I feel that he might have been a little less certain that he was the most powerful person around if he hadn't in fact been the most powerful person in his early childhood. If he had been raised with his mother adoring him and telling him how wonderful his father was, he might felt less hatred of people in general and Muggles in particular, but I fear not, that he wouldn't have cared that his mother adored him, because she was such a pathetic, ugly, impoverished loser despised by the other adults. Carol wrote in : << She does inform us correctly that Aberforth broke Albus's nose at Ariana's funeral (all this time, I just thought he was born with a crooked nose!) >> And I had thought that his long, thin, nose had been broken at least twice because that nose is as much a part of the stereotypical image of a wizard as the long white beard and the medieval style robes. Broken at least twice? Did both happen at the funeral? Tandra wrote in : << What exactly makes Voldermort so powerful? His father was a Muggle and his mother we never see that she was overly powerful. So I don't see that it could have been in his genes. The same with Harry really, though it seems we see his parents were talented in their own ways, nothing suggests the combo of their abilities would make a "great" wizard. >> Maybe it's hybrid vigor. That's a real phrase that I learned in my freshman Biology Class at university long ago. It means that the offspring from crossing purebreds of two different breeds of the same species are often healthier than either parent, and may be larger, more intelligent, more fertile, or other advantages. The reason is that the process of developing a purebred breed involves a lot of crossing closely-related parents who have the desired trait, in an effect to make sure that all offspring inherit it, not just some offspring. A side effect is that the pureblood is homozygous (both the paternal and the maternal copy of a gene are the same allele ('allele' is a fancy word for what flavor an instance of a gene is, like albino or not albino) f0r many genes that the breeder never thought of, as well as for the genes that the breeder was trying for. So the cross of two different purebloods (pure Wizard and pure Muggle) will have lots of heterozygous genes. I don't recall if the textbook ever explained what's so healthy about being heterozygous. SSSusan wrote in : << The five years was VERY distressing to me and that, particularly, was where I thought it would have been helpful for JKR to have revealed DD's gayness in text. That is, I think being best buds with someone vs. being in love with someone is a different thing, and the delay in confronting GG made a WHOLE lot more sense to me after the nature of the relationship/feelings was revealed. >> I thought there was an implication that the reason that Albus waited so long to take down Grindelwald was that Albus was afraid that Grindelwald would say something that would give away Albus's shameful secret that they had once been friends. I can't remember whether it was Skeeter's implication, or it was Albus's in King's Cross. Another, and to me more likely, but then I don't see the secret as being so shameful as all that, possible embarrassing reason for Albus to have procrastinated taking out Grindelwald is that he was far from sure he would win. A lot of people think the reason was that he didn't want to kill his long-ago friend. I often get things wrong, so that probably is the reason that JKR intended. The thing is, as far as erotic (romance) and non-erotic (friendship) love are concerned, either can be a temporary infatuation that soon burns out. which can leave a pleasant memory, or can leave one so ashamed of having been such a fool of such bad taste and judgment that one would prefer to forget it ever happened, and if that is not possible, resentful hostility to the person about whom memories are so unpleasant. And both erotic and non-erotic love can be a life-long connection. But it seems to me that the non-erotic love is more likely to last for years and influence one's values and the erotic love is more likely to temporary and leave a bad memory. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 03:16:09 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:16:09 -0000 Subject: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182580 Catlady wrote: > Meanwhile, I want to know what Gellaert did to be expelled from Durmstrang, and how evil he actually was at the time. I think he might have been not all that evil at that time, and gradually gotten more and more evil. > > On the other tentacle, could he have been a deceptive psychopath just like young Riddle, who also charmed adults and classmates, except without the excessive fear of death? Young Riddle seems to have succeeded in concealing that his true desire was to kill rather than to rule. If Grindelwald was a deceptive psychopath whose desire was to rule, killing only a means to that end, would that have been just as evil as Riddle? Carol responds: I don't know enough about psychology or psychiatry to trust my use of labels like psychopath or sociopath, but I see a huge difference in Tom Riddle and Gellert Grindelwald despite their both being handsome and capable of charming others. As you say, we don't know what Gellert did to get himself expelled from Durmstrang, but if Durmstrang deserves its reputation as a school that teaches the Dark Arts (presumably using teachers with considerably more intelligence and subtlety than Amycus Carrow), he must have done something dark and dreadful or else endangered a large number of people. I doubt that he killed anyone or he'd have been imprisoned rather than expelled. (Even Durmstrang and the Wizards who send their children there must have their limits. Neither Viktor Krum nor the schoolmate who dribbles food on his robes strike me as budding Dark Wizards.) That aside, it does seem that Gellert was interested in power (ruling over others) rather than killing per se (killing and torture would be a means to an end, not the end in itself). Tom Riddle, in contrast, is interested in *himself*--his powers, his difference from other people, his ability to hurt and control other people. His hatred of Muggles and, by extension, Muggle-borns, is real enough, IMO, but the Pure-Blood ideology is only a front, the "carrot" that he holds out to lure Pure-Blood Death Eaters to serve him. (The "stick" is the Dark Mark that binds them to "a lifetime of service or death," in Sirius Black's words). Grindelwald, in contrast, is primarily interested in ruling the WW (with Muggles as slaves, as in the Magic Is Might statue). He and Albus as boys imagine themselves as co-rulers, but only one can wield the One Ring--erm, the Elder Wand. Another difference that I perceive is charisma. Gellert Grindelwald, at least when he's sixteen going on seventeen, is genuinely charming, merry, always laughing. Even as he perches on the windowsill after stealing the Elder Wand, he's laughing. He Stuns Gregorvitch and flies or falls backward out the window with an exuberance of which Tom Riddle, whose charm is all surface and only a means of manipulating people, is incapable. Old Bathilda felt genuine affection for him even after all those years, knowing what he became. Was he wicked? I don't know. Was he a silent baby who never laughed, never wanted to be played with? I very much doubt it. It seems to me, too, that Gellert, like Albus, was an intellectual. He read and thought and developed a philosophy that he believed would justify his bid for power. He knew, as Riddle did not, about the Deathly Hallows. Riddle, in contrast, studied his own roots, his connection to Slytherin, followed by the pursuit of immortality because he feared death and considered it a Muggle weakness. It seems to me that the old, imprisoned Grindelwald, still mentally sharp despite long years in his own prison, holds Voldemort in contempt for his ignorance and possibly for other reasons (his self-absorption and fear of death). And it's clear that he doesn't want Voldemort to violate Dumbledore's tomb (how he knows that DD is dead, I don't recall). Dead!Dumbledore believes that Grindelwald repented in the end, and I agree with him. Yes, he's a Dark Wizard. Yes, he built a prison for his enemies and killed a lot of people and who knows what other horrible things. But he never makes a Horcrux, and, IMO, he retains a seed of goodness and humanity that makes him very different from Voldemort. Catlady: > If he [Tom Riddle] had been raised with his mother adoring him and telling him how wonderful his father was, he might felt less hatred of people in general and Muggles in particular, but I fear not, that he wouldn't have cared that his mother adored him, because she was such a pathetic, ugly, impoverished loser despised by the other adults. Carol: I agree. But I wonder what would have happened if his father hadn't deserted him, if he'd heard that his motherless child was in an orphanage and had come to rescue him. It wouldn't have happened, of course, because Tom Sr. hated Merope and wanted nothing to do with their child, but if he'd been a better man, putting his child's needs above his own injuries and humiliation . . . . Would Tom Riddle, loved despite being a Wizard and the child of Merope Gaunt, have become Voldemort? Or would he have been the image of his father, a haughty lord of the manor, who used his powers in some other way? (He'd have received a Hogwarts letter, of course.) Tandra wrote in > : > > << What exactly makes Voldermort so powerful? His father was a Muggle and his mother we never see that she was overly powerful. So I don't see that it could have been in his genes. > > The same with Harry really, though it seems we see his parents were talented in their own ways, nothing suggests the combo of their abilities would make a "great" wizard. >> Catlady replied: > Maybe it's hybrid vigor. That's a real phrase that I learned in my freshman Biology Class at university long ago. It means that the offspring from crossing purebreds of two different breeds of the same species are often healthier than either parent, and may be larger, more intelligent, more fertile, or other advantages. Carol responds: Could be though I doubt that JKR is an expert in genetics (see her attempt at explaining magic as a dominant gene). It's noteworthy, however, that the four most important Wizards in the series--Voldemort, Dumbledore, Harry, and Snape--are all Half-bloods. I can't explain Tom Riddle, who seems to be a throwback to Salazar Slytherin, but his handsome Muggle father helped him in the looks department. As for Harry, despite a Pure-Blood father who was good at Quidditch (the sole talent that Harry seems to have inherited) and talented at Transfiguration (the Marauder's Map; becoming an illegal Animagus in his teens) and a mother who was gifted at Potions according to Slughorn (and perhaps at Charms, if her first wand is any indication), Harry is not a gifted student, and his skill at DADA is mostly a matter of necessity. He learns Expelliarmus, which becomes his signature spell, from Snape in the ill-fated Duelling Club; he learns to cast a powerful Patronus at an early age because Dementors are preventing him from playing Quidditch (he has the advantage of special instruction from Lupin and the luck of having a Dementor Boggart to practice on); he learns Stunning Spells and Impedimenta and Reducto and Protego (all of which Hermione looked up for him, IIRC, and helped him practice) because Crouch!Moody put his name in the Goblet of Fire. When he faces Voldemort in GoF, it's back to the old stand-by, Expelliarmus, because he's no match for Voldemort. (Lucky that the wands shared a core.) He uses the same spells again in OoP against the Death Eaters (who would have defeated and probably killed him and his friends had the Order not shown up just as he was about to hand the Prophecy orb to Lucius Malfoy); he escapes possession by Voldemort not through skill or power but through his ability to love; he learns a few new spell courtesy of the HBP, one of which nearly results in disaster, but when he tries to curse Snape repeatedly after Snape "murders" DD, using a combination of familiar spells and Snape's inventions, Snape parries them effortlessly. He would not have escaped the Inferi (much less gotten into the cave in the first place) were it not for DD's far superior skill and power. In DH, it's Harry's wand, not Harry's own power (as he tries to tell Hermione) that causes his wand to send some dark spell at Voldemort; he's nearly killed (if Horcrux!Harry can be killed) by Nagini; and he defeats Voldemort through a combination of luck and self-sacrifice, using Expelliarmus yet again in the end. Any extraordinary powers that Harry has (Parseltongue, the scar link) are the result of the AK that failed and his mother's sacrifice, not to mention the state of Voldemort's mangled soul, which enabled a piece to fly off and lodge itself, unknown to LV, in the open cut on baby!Harry's forehead. Without those special circumstances, both the soul bit and the special training, Harry would (IMO) have been just another Wizard kid, very good at flying and Quidditch but no better than Ron at his studies, including DADA. (He'd have had the advantage of a better wand, though, probably!) And the Muggle-born Hermione would, not doubt, have outperformed him in every subject instead of every subject except DADA. Carol, waxing theoretical since nobody seems to be posting today! From leahstill at hotmail.com Sun Apr 20 14:28:18 2008 From: leahstill at hotmail.com (littleleahstill) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:28:18 -0000 Subject: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182581 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: >> > As for Harry, despite a Pure-Blood father who was good at Quidditch > (the sole talent that Harry seems to have inherited) and talented at > Transfiguration (the Marauder's Map; becoming an illegal Animagus in > his teens) and a mother who was gifted at Potions according to > Slughorn (and perhaps at Charms, if her first wand is any indication), > Harry is not a gifted student, and his skill at DADA is mostly a > matter of necessity. (snipping DADA examples) > Any extraordinary powers that Harry has (Parseltongue, the scar link) > are the result of the AK that failed and his mother's sacrifice, not > to mention the state of Voldemort's mangled soul, which enabled a > piece to fly off and lodge itself, unknown to LV, in the open cut on > baby!Harry's forehead. Without those special circumstances, both the > soul bit and the special training, Harry would (IMO) have been just > another Wizard kid, very good at flying and Quidditch but no better > than Ron at his studies, including DADA. (He'd have had the advantage > of a better wand, though, probably!) And the Muggle-born Hermione > would, not doubt, have outperformed him in every subject instead of > every subject except DADA. > > Carol, waxing theoretical since nobody seems to be posting today! Leah: It is quiet isn't it. Snipping your post dramatically, to reply to the bit I disagree with somewhat. In his OWLS, Harry obtains one O in DADA (which, I would agree is a 'special' subject for him), and Es in Potions, Transfiguration, Charms, Herbology and COMC. Setting aside his failed subjects for a moment, his only low pass (A) is in Astronomy, where the practical exam was interrupted. At least the first three of Harry's E passes are in subjects which we have seen are technically difficult and also require a good theoretical knowledge. I think it's fair to say that Harry's performance in any of these subjects in class and during his homework periods, would have suggested that he would be at best an 'Acceptable' student when it came to predicting grades. To me, his exam results suggest not that he is untalented, but that he is one of those annoying (to teachers) children who coast along in class but are bright and intrinsically talented enought to pull the stops out when it really matters. If he could get Es with the work that he put in over his years at Hogwarts, then it would only have taken a bit of academic application to end up with Os all round. Harry works when he needs to (DADA, as you say) and is either interested in the subject (DADA, Potions when he need Felix) or likes the teacher (Hagrid, Lupin, McGonagall to some extent, the Prince). When he's not interested in the subject or dislikes the teacher (HoM, Diviniation, pre- NEWT Potions), he either can't be bothered or he's careless. He also, perhaps because of his neglect by the Dursleys) does well when taught one to one (Hermione, Lupin, the Prince). He does tend to be lazy and procrastinate (as in the Triwizard contest and getting Slughorn's memory) and needs to be inspired to concentrate and work hard. As to Harry's inherited talents, when, during his first NEWT year, he is actually engaged by Potions, by a combination of (apparent) lack of Professor Snape, the Prince's book, and the fact that he can suddenly see the usefulness of being good at the subject, he does very, very well - '"I don't think even you, Severus...". Of course a lot of that is caused by following the Prince's instructions, but it can't be the only reason, since Potions requires not only following instructions accurately, but intrinsic skills in chopping and blending. I'm not sure Neville would have done as well as Harry if gifted with the Prince's book. That would suggest that Harry has inherited Lily's talent, albeit suppressed through most of his school career by his lack of his interest and his mutual antagonism with Snape. I suspect James was much like Harry. We see in SWM that James finds exams easy, and McGonagall describes him and Sirius as very bright. However, she does not say that he was a hardworking student or enjoyable to teach, rather that he and Sirius were 'troublemakers'. I don't see James as the Hermione of his day. The accomplishments that you refer to, the Marauders' Map and the animagus transformations, are things James achieved in his own time, because, we can presume, he wanted to be able to move about the school undetected and because he wanted to accompany WereLupin. In other words, like Harry he put a great deal of effort into his work and used his talents when he was engaged and interested, and had something to gain, and, like Harry he could also perform well when it mattered at exam time. I agree with you about the nature of Harry's special powers, but think that, as a student, Harry is actually someone who was quite talented enough if he could be bothered to be so. Leah From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 20 16:57:16 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 20 Apr 2008 16:57:16 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/20/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1208710636.25.78335.m52@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182582 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 20, 2008 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 2008 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 20 18:05:06 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:05:06 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182583 > > Carol responds: > > As for Harry, despite a Pure-Blood father who was good at Quidditch > (the sole talent that Harry seems to have inherited) and talented at > Transfiguration (the Marauder's Map; becoming an illegal Animagus in > his teens) and a mother who was gifted at Potions according to > Slughorn (and perhaps at Charms, if her first wand is any indication), > Harry is not a gifted student, and his skill at DADA is mostly a > matter of necessity. Pippin: Harry was able to conjure a corporeal patronus at the age of thirteen and repel the imperius curse a year later. That is unusual per canon. Surely it's more than a case of being motivated (if that's what you mean by a matter of necessity.) It isn't at all clear to me that the average student could have learned to cast a patronus at that age, and most wizards are powerless against Imperius. I think those two achievements, which AFAWK have nothing to do with the soul-bit, are sufficient to elevate Harry above "just an ordinary wizard kid who's good at flying." IMO, classroom settings have never shown or developed Harry's skills to their best advantage, which is why I perfectly understand why Harry didn't return to Hogwarts (according to JKR's interviews.) In any case, he'd been on his own, living as an adult, for nearly a year -- I couldn't see him going back to a life of Filch, house points, detentions, prefects, curfews and homework no matter how much he longed to sleep in Gryffindor Tower again. Nor would that have hindered his future as an Auror. I can't imagine anyone in the WW (aside from Draco Malfoy) who wouldn't jump at the chance to give Harry Potter private lessons in any subject he desired to learn. Pippin From k12listmomma at comcast.net Sun Apr 20 21:02:29 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:02:29 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sword of Gryffindor References: Message-ID: <002001c8a329$d982e540$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 182584 > Geoff: > This brings up a thought which came to me earlier today > after my last post. There has been much talk of a link > between the Hat and the sword of Gryffindor. One thing > which has been exercising me is the fact that the Hat > should be impartial and without bias when deciding to > which house new pupils should be allocated. So, this > begs the question: if someone in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw > or - heaven forbid - Slytherin finds themselves in > a situation of calling for help, how does the Hat respond? > > One for the academics. > > Geoff Shelley: But, there's the assumption- that the HAT responded. I think it's much more likely that the Sorting Hat is merely a conduit- channeling that call for help to the House leaders who would determine what appropriate help the student needed. The Sword was in Dumbledore's possession, as was Fawkes. I don't think the Hat picked those two items of Dumbledore's but more likely that Dumbledore picked those items for Harry to use. So, by extension of my reasoning, any Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin who had the Hat in a time of danger and called for help would get magical items sent to them from their House leaders. Snape would have been choosing items to send to the Slytherin student, Sprout would have been sending items to the Hufflepuff, and Flitwick would be sending items to Ravenclaw students, or some other teacher in their house. Of course, it's possible that the Headmaster would hear all calls, and be the one responding, but I still think he'd send items that would be aligned by the House that student was in. From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun Apr 20 21:42:28 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 21:42:28 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <002001c8a329$d982e540$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182585 > > Geoff: > > This brings up a thought which came to me earlier today > > after my last post. There has been much talk of a link > > between the Hat and the sword of Gryffindor. One thing > > which has been exercising me is the fact that the Hat > > should be impartial and without bias when deciding to > > which house new pupils should be allocated. So, this > > begs the question: if someone in Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw > > or - heaven forbid - Slytherin finds themselves in > > a situation of calling for help, how does the Hat respond? > > Pippin: Perhaps the Hat has a charm on it like the Room of Requirement, and can conjure whatever the asker needs. But considering that it was Gryffindor's hat, I think the charm which conjures the sword was added to the hat after Gryffindor and Slytherin became rivals. Since the legend of the Chamber had to start somewhere, someone must have suspected that Slytherin had left something behind to aid his true heir. I think Gryffindor then arranged to aid a true member of his own House by charming the sword so it would appear inside the hat "in need and in peril." This might be a good place to tack on my speculation as to the original powers of the Cup and the Locket. The Locket's easy, it kept whatever was locked in it safe from all magical harm, and it could only be opened by a parselmouth. The Cup's harder, but I think, giving Arthurian legend a JKR-ish twist, that it must have been a cup only the faithful could drink from. That would be a fitting property for Hufflepuff and also a suitable gift for Bella, Voldemort's most faithful servant. Pippin From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 22:00:38 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 22:00:38 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <002001c8a329$d982e540$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182586 Shelley wrote: > But, there's the assumption- that the HAT responded. I think it's much more likely that the Sorting Hat is merely a conduit- channeling that call for help to the House leaders who would determine what appropriate help the student needed. The Sword was in Dumbledore's possession, as was Fawkes. I don't think the Hat picked those two items of Dumbledore's but more likely that Dumbledore picked those items for Harry to use. > > So, by extension of my reasoning, any Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or Slytherin who had the Hat in a time of danger and called for help would get magical items sent to them from their House leaders. Snape would have been choosing items to send to the Slytherin student, Sprout would have been sending items to the Hufflepuff, and Flitwick would be sending items to Ravenclaw students, or some other teacher in their house. Of course, it's possible that the Headmaster would hear all calls, and be the one responding, but I still think he'd send items that would be aligned by the House that student was in. Carol responds: I agree with you that the Hat itself is not responding to the plea for help (surely, it's the Sword of Gryffindor that's responding, coming out of the Hat only after Harry calls for help, with the hat having been brought by Fawkes, not coming to Harry on its own). Also, I agree that Dumbledore, himself a Gryffindor, arranged those particular protections for Gryffindor Harry: his own Gryffindor-colored Phoenix, Fawkes, and the Sword of Gryffindor--with the Hat as not so much a conduit as a container that Fawkes can easily grasp in his claws. That the Sword also comes out of the Sorting Hat for Neville in DH (after LV has Summoned the Hat--it doesn't come on its own) suggests that this particular arrangement was placed on it either by Dumbledore bdfore Harry's encounter with Slytherin's monster, or, more likely, by the original owner of the Sorting Hat, Godric Gryffindor. And, with or without Dumbledore, the Sword responds to Gryffindors under conditions of "need and valor." (I don't think it would have come to a Gryffindor outside the school or the grounds had it not been for Snape, however, and he, of course, was acting on Portrait!DD's orders. It certainly didn't magically appear to Harry in the graveyard in GoF or when he faced Nagini in DH, to give just two examples. If the Sword appeared to him whenever he needed it, with or without the Sorting Hat, his life would be much easier!) As I said earlier, I think that DD knew that Harry would be facing a Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets and arranged his protections accordingly. But *he* did not hear Harry's cry for help; he had been evicted from the school by the Board of Governors under threat from Lucius Malfoy. If it were the HoH who heard the plea, it would have been McGonagall, not Dumbledore, who sent them, but it's clear from both Diary!Tom's words about "Dumbledore's defender" (Harry) and DD's own words in Hagrid's Hut that it's DD who arranged the protections to be sent when the need arose. (The "songbird" and "old hat" appear when Harry expresses loyalty to DD, and Fawkes blinds the Basilisk before it can attack Harry, also crying to heal his wounds with Phoenix tears just as he's about to expire from the venom; the sword appears only when he cries for help, showing "need." he has already shown "valor" by standing up to Memory!Tom--or Horcrux!Tom as I suppose we should not call him.) Now, DD does say that "help will always come at Hogwarts to those who need it," but I'm not sure how true that statement is. DD has clearly prearranged particular protections for a particular student. And, of course, Harry would have died the previous year (not yet sharing a drop of blood with Voldemort) if DD hadn't realized just in time that the urgent message from the Ministry was a hoax. Does "help will always come at Hogwarts to those who need it" really apply? We see Snape saving Draco (and he also saves Montague from the toilet after he finds a way out of the Vanishing Cabinet), and until the Battle of Hogwarts, no one (except Quirrell, who has forfeited any right to the school's protection) actually dies in the school or on its grounds. TT!Harry saves himself and his friends from the Dementors (after Snape has conjured stretchers to get them all to the hospital wing). McGonagall, however, is hit by four Stunning Spells to the chest and no one comes to save her. Nor does anyone or anything come to save Dumbledore and prevent Snape from having to kill him. Is the school actually providing protection, or is the protection being provided by DD, Snape, Harry, and Harry's own uncanny luck? I think the latter. If the school were as protected as Snape and DD believe it is, DEs could not have gotten into the school in HBP. Neither, for that matter, could Fake!Moody in GoF, Umbridge in OoP, and the Carrows in DH. Carol, who thinks that DD really meant, "Help will come to you [Harry] when you enter the CoS because I've arranged for your protection" From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 02:24:00 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 02:24:00 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapters 4-5 post DH look Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182587 I am telling you guys, OOP reread is indeed going hard and slow for me, hehe. I mean, I always read several books at the same time, but other HP books had always been fun to reread, OOP just well, wasn't. Like this chapter introduces CAPSLOCK Harry and it is actually painful for me to read, which is I suppose another praise for JKR's talent, if I feel his emotions so much. And boy I am I not looking forward to Umbridge or what? Anyways, here it is. "She's been in the right state," said Ron. "Pecked us half to death when she brought your last letters, look at this --" ****** "Oh yeah," Harry said. "Sorry about that, but I wanted answers, you know...." - p.63 Alla: I know I expressed my amazement over how smart Hedwig is several times already, but here is one more. She is reacting to Harry's emotional state, isn't she? AND she is trying to do something about it. Poor Hedwig. "____we've met about twenty of them," said Ron, " but we think there are more..." - p.67 Alla: So OOP is already much bigger than during first war. Oy my opinion of their usefulness goes further down. "He came home really pleased with himself - even more pleased than usual if you can imagine that - and told Dad he'd been offered a position in Fudge's own office. A really good one for someone only a year out of Hogwarts - Junior Assistant to the Minister. He expected Dad to be all impressed, I think" - p.71 Alla: Funny, I have not reread this part for a long time, for a very long time and when I read this paragraph, I actually thought that I will be experiencing change of opinion on it. As some of you may know I have hold Percy and only Percy responsible for this fight. Well, I do not like Percy much, never did, but when I read this paragraph and especially "He expected Dad to be all impressed I think", I for the first time EVER had some sympathy for him. It felt like teenager who got his first big break or so it seems to him, and who truly expects his family to be happy for him. OOOPS. His Dad barks at him instead. So, yes I have some sympathy for Percy now, but I did not experience the eye opening or something, I am afraid. Because you see, if all that would have been out of Percy's mouth in responce was "Dad, you are absolutely wrong, they would never expect me to spy on my family", that would be one story. What I heard out of Percy's mouth was to me completely disgusting, IMO of course. But at least now I can sort of see Percy's side, not much but sort of. Heee, reread can be useful after all. "Here dear ," said Mrs. Weasley, sounding exasperated, and she repaired the parchment with a wave of her wand: In the flash of light caused by Mrs. Weasley's charm, Harry caught a glimpse of what looked like a plan of the building" - p.80 Alla: So Molly can repair parchment, eh? I love bits like this, where JKR shows that Molly can do cool stuff. I never ever doubted that she is powerful witch, if only because of her kids, but I like the hints anyways. "There was something about the slightly flattened tone of voice in which Sirius uttered Dumbledore's name that told Harry that Sirius was not very happy with Headmaster either. Harry felt a sudden urge of affection for his godfather" - p.83 Alla: Sigh. "She was termbling slightly as she looked at Sirius. "You've given Harry plenty of information" - p.96 Alla: Oh how I hate this remark of yours Molly. If you were not a woman, I would love to see Sirius slap you across the face and tell you off about not interfering what he can talk about with his godson in his house. From lmkos at earthlink.net Mon Apr 21 02:38:55 2008 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:38:55 -0600 Subject: The Cup, the Locket, the Sword, the Journey In-Reply-To: References: <002001c8a329$d982e540$6401a8c0@homemain> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182588 >Pippin: >Perhaps the Hat has a charm on it like the Room of Requirement, >and can conjure whatever the asker needs. But considering that >it was Gryffindor's hat, I think the charm which conjures the >sword was added to the hat after Gryffindor and Slytherin became >rivals. > >Since the legend of the Chamber had to start somewhere, someone >must have suspected that Slytherin had left something behind to >aid his true heir. >[snip] > >This might be a good place to tack on my speculation as to the >original powers of the Cup and the Locket. The Locket's easy, >it kept whatever was locked in it safe from all magical harm, >and it could only be opened by a parselmouth. The Cup's harder, >but I think, giving Arthurian legend a JKR-ish twist, that it must have >been a cup only the faithful could drink from. That would be a fitting >property for Hufflepuff and also a suitable gift for Bella, Voldemort's >most faithful servant. >Pippin Lenore here: Pippin's post got me to thinking about some of the deep symbolic meanings in the horcrux artefacts which have been haunting me for some time. I tend to see everything in the context of our spiritual Journey, including everything I read. I think JKR has deliberately placed liberal amounts of rich archetypal symbolism in the books. It hasn't always been easy to sort it all out, and I make no attempt to sort it out as JKR might see the symbolism. I'm just sharing my own insight, FWIW, and hoping this won't be considered OT. Essays could be written about each one of the following but for now I'm purposely keeping it brief. The first horcrux we encounter in the books is actually the Wound, or Scar. But since we aren't aware of that at the time (and this fact is spiritually significant as well), the first one is the Diary. With Ginny, we have been possessed by our memories. Bondage to the past can slowly suck out our life force and delay our Journey, even to the point of turning us to stone. The destruction of the Diary horcrux (for me) represents releasing our minds from the grip of the past and its painful memories. The Sword, for me, is a Sword of Discerning. It is very handy for cutting through the illusion and exposing it, so we see it coming into use at many of the stages of the Journey. The Ring (of Bondage). Even the wisest will put it on! We have all been deceived into putting it on at various times and have felt its poison creep through our veins. The Slytherin Locket evokes, for me, the opening of secret, darkened rooms of the mind-- areas which we had been completely unaware of till now. This phase of the journey is usually very difficult and harrowing. Once opened, only the Sword can help us-- and forgiveness. (The Chamber of Secrets and the Basilisk left by Slytherin are further clues about the nature of this passage.) The Hufflepuff Cup. To my thinking, this experience would actually come first or at least second in the spiritual Path. The Cup is the heart, open to receive divine Love and grace. This awareness is often the first stage of the Path for an aspirant: "With an Everlasting Love I have loved you..." The Diadem or Tiara. After healing of the past (Diary/Cup) and correcting the mind of its errors (Locket/Sword), the "crown" is at last in sight. But it's like a mountain-climber who can only see the distant summit through the clouds. This is the vision of the true Self (or Grail), but it has not yet been attained. There are two more major steps to take. The Wound/Scar. This is the Wound we all carry from our ancient Fall. It is the piece of darkness within our mind which resulted from the Fall. We must willingly relinquish it, even though that feels like death, or worse than death. To give it up is not death, but Life. We erroneously believe it is sacrifice, but there can be no sacrifice in letting go what keeps us in bondage and pain. The Snake, the last weapon, is overcome for us after we have completed the previous steps. Here, the "lower self" is forever overcome. It can exert no hold over us again because, well, it's head has been cut off. This obstacle is vanquished about the same time as the Wound. They are, in many ways, the same thing, really. Voldemort. At this point, at the final stage, the "father of lies" has lost all its powers over us. Its weapons have all been destroyed, so it is not so difficult now to end its reign. It is exposed and that is really what destroys it. (Not exposing it is how we keep and maintain it.) Lenore From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Apr 21 18:16:57 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 18:16:57 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapter 3 post DH look/Trusting Moody In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182589 s funny how my emotions change when reading this chapter. I start off sad for Harry that he is feeling left out and missing his two best friends and then I smile as his rescue party come. He starts out suspicious at Moody which I don't blame him and then I breathe a sigh of relief as he hears a voice of someone he likes a lot and of course trusts . It's Lupin !!!.So he is more relaxed then and ready to go and to trust Moody This is my favourite HP book and IMHO my emotions go through so much by the end. Jayne Just returned fro a literary weekend in Edinburgh From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Mon Apr 21 16:16:01 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 11:16:01 -0500 Subject: Snape's Dementor lesson References: <1208618509.2467.38375.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000401c8a3cb$16421fe0$c7ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182590 > So, whatever the defense that Snape recommends against Dementors i, > it > must be a protection against despair that works for him. . . . SNIP . . . > But, yes. He probably doesn't want Harry to see his > Patronus, either. A shame. It might have been all the proof that HRH > needed that Snape was on their side. > > Carol I expected JKR to explain what Snape's recommended Dementor protection was. However, there are a lot of open ends which DH didn't close, so I shouldn't be surprised that this one was also left open. I do wonder how Snape is supposed to have communicated with Grimauld Place in general and Sirius in particular toward the end of OoP. DD told Harry that the Order had better means of communication than Umbridge's fireplace, and later at JKR's web site the Order's communication was explained as the special modification of the patronous charm. However, if DD knew from the doe patronous that Snape was still loyal to Lily, and various people (I don't remember if they included JKR) said that for Sirius and Lupin not to realize Snape's true loyalty they must never have seen his patronous. So, if not by sending the doe patronous, how did Snape tell Sirius, et al, what was happening and "urge" Sirius not to leave the house? Jerri From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Mon Apr 21 19:53:18 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (JAYNE SMITH) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:53:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: <000401c8a3cb$16421fe0$c7ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: <539433.16692.qm@web86310.mail.ird.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182591 Jerri/Dan Chase wrote: snip I do wonder how Snape is supposed to have communicated with Grimauld Place in general and Sirius in particular toward the end of OoP. DD told Harry that the Order had better means of communication than Umbridge's fireplace, and later at JKR's web site the Order's communication was explained as the special modification of the patronous charm. However, if DD knew from the doe patronous that Snape was still loyal to Lily, and various people (I don't remember if they included JKR) said that for Sirius and Lupin not to realize Snape's true loyalty they must never have seen his patronous. So, if not by sending the doe patronous, how did Snape tell Sirius, et al, what was happening and "urge" Sirius not to leave the house? Jerri I have also wondered that too Jerri. Did he use amessenger like Fawkes or an owl. I always thought until I read DH that it was by Patronus as we did not know about the doe then. Jayne Wondering too and clutching at straws [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Mon Apr 21 20:29:20 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:29:20 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182592 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: Shelley: > > But, there's the assumption- that the HAT responded. I think it's > much more likely that the Sorting Hat is merely a conduit- channeling > that call for help to the House leaders who would determine what > appropriate help the student needed. The Sword was in Dumbledore's > possession, as was Fawkes. I don't think the Hat picked those two > items of Dumbledore's but more likely that Dumbledore picked those > items for Harry to use. > > > > So, by extension of my reasoning, any Hufflepuff, Ravenclaw, or > Slytherin who had the Hat in a time of danger and called for help > would get magical items sent to them from their House leaders. Carol: > I agree with you that the Hat itself is not responding to the plea for > help (surely, it's the Sword of Gryffindor that's responding, coming > out of the Hat only after Harry calls for help, with the hat having > been brought by Fawkes, not coming to Harry on its own). > > Also, I agree that Dumbledore, himself a Gryffindor, arranged those > particular protections for Gryffindor Harry: his own > Gryffindor-colored Phoenix, Fawkes, and the Sword of Gryffindor--with > the Hat as not so much a conduit as a container that Fawkes can easily > grasp in his claws. > As I said earlier, I think that DD knew that Harry would be facing a > Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets and arranged his protections > accordingly. But *he* did not hear Harry's cry for help; he had been > evicted from the school by the Board of Governors under threat from > Lucius Malfoy. > Now, DD does say that "help will always come at Hogwarts to those > who need it," but I'm not sure how true that statement is. Geoff: I have been following this thread from Wales over the weekend but have not previously commented further because I did not have access to my HP books and needed to check some facts before rejoining the fray. I think that, like a lot of topics on this group, we tend to put forward our own theories as likely possibilities. We are not able to offer absolute and final answers to these queries. I have my own take on this as does every other person responding. However, I think I can excavate enough out of canon to back up some of my thinking. I'm rather inclined to side with Shelley in that a genuine call for help would go to the respective House Head. But, looking at Dumbledore's part in this, Carol suggests that Dumbledore arranged for Fawkes and the Sword to go to Harry's aid because he knew that Harry would face a basilisk. But did he? 'At last Dumbledore straightened up. "She's not dead, Argus," he said softly. Lockhart stopped abruptly in the middle of counting the number of murders he had prevented. "Not dead?" choked Filch, looking though his fingers at Mrs. Norris. "But why's she all - all stiff and frozen?" "She has been petrified," said Dumbledore ("Ah! I thought so!" said Lockhart). "But how. I cannot say..." "Ask him!" shrieked Filch, turning his blotched and tear-stained face to Harry. "No second year could have done this," said Dumbledore firmly. "It would take magic of the most advanced...."' (COS "The Writing on the Wall" p.108 UK edition) Basilisks kill by looking; this much Dumbledore would know. But what previous evidence of one of these creatures causing petrification is there? Also, since when did a Basilisk write messages on walls? There is obviously a human agency at work here, whatever else may be involved. So, I am not totally swayed by the theory that Dumbledore set up the Phoenix situation knowing what Harry was likely to face. I reiterate what I suggested previously. What made him think that Harry would go looking for the Chamber - or if he did that he would succeed where others hadn't over the centuries? I think that it all revolved on luck and a series of fortunate coincidences. Much of real life is like that after all. Returning to the question of the Hat summoning help from the other House Heads, Carol said: > Now, DD does say that "help will always come at Hogwarts to those > who need it," but I'm not sure how true that statement is. It isn't. Dumbledore's actual words are: '"You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."' (COS "Cornelius Fudge" p. 195 UK edition) Note two things. Help will be given "at Hogwarts" and also, not to "those who need" but to those "who ask". Which is a very different scenario. Interestingly, while I was mulling over this information, my mind suddenly went back to the times when I have postulated that JKR wrote her books from a Christian point of view and the words of Jesus jumped unbidden into my mind: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." (occurring in both Matthew 7 and Luke 11). And this is what Harry does, though not strictly in that order. He learns how to 'knock' on the door of the Chamber and gain admittance; he is seeking Ginny and finds her and he asks for help in great need and receives it. I am not suggesting in this that JKR is using Harry in a Christian allegory but that her outworking of the story might have been triggered by a memory of this comment. However, as I said in the beginning, my main point was that Dumbledore did not necessarily foresee how events would unfold. It might have been sheer serendipity that he sent Fawkes - if he did and the bird didn't act on its own because it sensed Harry's loyalty. There is much about Phoenixes of which we are not aware; like much of the Wizarding World, there is an 'unwritten canon' - for want of a better term - whose presence we seem to sense but which we haven't got in black and white. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 22:04:04 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:04:04 -0000 Subject: OOP Chapters 4-5 post DH look In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182593 Alla wrote: > > I am telling you guys, OOP reread is indeed going hard and slow for me, hehe. I mean, I always read several books at the same time, but other HP books had always been fun to reread, OOP just well, wasn't. Like this chapter introduces CAPSLOCK Harry and it is actually painful for me to read, which is I suppose another praise for JKR's talent, if I feel his emotions so much. And boy I am I not looking forward to Umbridge or what? Carol responds: I thought of you when I was rereading DD's remarks in "The Lost Prophecy" in light of the revelations about his boyhood in DH. Can't wait till you get to that chapter because I have a lot to say! But, yeah. Umbridge is just despicable. Alla quoted: > "____we've met about twenty of them," said Ron, " but we think there are more..." - p.67 > Alla commented: > > So OOP is already much bigger than during first war. Oy my opinion of their usefulness goes further down. Carol responds: Well, let's see. There's Sirius, Lupin, four Weasleys (one of them in Romania), Snape, McGonagall, Tonks, Kingsley, Mad-eye, Hestia Smith, Emmeline Vance, Dedalus Diggle, Mrs. Figg, Mundungus Fletcher, Aberforth Dumbledore, Elphias Doge, Sturgis Podmore--that's nineteen that I can think of (if I'm counting correctly). Am I forgetting anyone that I've actually named, other than DD himself? Maybe the twenty or so that Ron has seen is the whole Order. As for how useful they are, all of them take turns doing guard duty at the Mom. Mr. Weasley falls asleep on the job and gets bitten, though I doubt he could have fended off Horcrux!Nagini even if he'd been awake, and Sturgis got Imperiused and arrested (not his fault, as far as I can see, but he doesn't seem to have rejoined the Order once he got out of Azkaban. Wonder what happened to him?) All or most of them seem to have taken turns under the Invisibility Cloak watching Harry in the summer between GoF and OoP as well. Mundungus Fletcher, of course, deserted his post to buy dodgy cauldrons just in time for Umbridge to summon the Dementors, but Mrs. Figg seems to have done her best to watch out for Harry, "putting Mr. Tibbles on the case" in case Mundungus had his priorities wrong and even offering to have tea with Harry to keep an eye on him. Lupin and Snape and Aberforth were spies, and Snape's information, at least, seems to have been valuable. If not for him, they wouldn't know that LV was trying to steal the Prophecy and, later, to invade Harry's mind to get *him* to steal it. Mundungus, too, is probably a spy, which is the only reason that DD would find the smelly sneak thief useful, IMO. Tonks shows her tough, efficient side (and her skill as a Metamorphmagus) on the Knight Bus. Kingsley Obliviates Marietta, preventing her from testifying against Harry and the DA (ethically questionable, maybe, but I'm not going there in this post). Snape, of course, gives Harry Occlumency lessons, which might have succeeded if not for the mutual mistrust, Harry's desire to have the dream and failure to practice, and DD's withholding of information. He also informs the Order members that Harry has evidently believed the vision and gone to the MoM. And Sirius, Lupin, Mad-Eye, Tonks, and Kingsley showed up in time to prevent Lucius Malfoy from taking the Prophecy. Granted, two of them were wounded and out of action before DD showed up and another died soon afterwards, but the kids were safe from that point on and they bought time till DD showed up and saved the day. If the Order hadn't shown up, the kids would almost certainly have died. DD himself wouldn't have shown up if Snape hadn't told Sirius Black to wait for him. Granted, Sirius delegated Kreacher to inform DD instead of doing it himself, but if it hadn't been for both Snape and Sirius, DD wouldn't have shown up, either. I didn't mention Harry's guard, which got him safely from 4 Privet Drive to 12 GP (and Tonks's clever little ruse got the Dursleys out of the house). And Mr. Weasley escorted him safely to his hearing, where Mrs. Figg's testimony (and DD's intervention) saved the day. And, of course, Hagrid's largely failed mission did at least result in the recruiting of a "good" giant, poor misunderstood little Grawp, who ends up inadvertently saving Harry and Hermione from the Centaurs. The question is what else may have been going on in OoP (I'm not discussing the other books in this post). What, for example, was McGonagall doing dressed as a Muggle? And what, besides Snape's reports, went on in their meetings? (If they succeeded in recruiting anybody to their side, we don't hear about it.) In contrast to the original Order members, notably the Prewett brothers and all the others who were killed, they don't seem to be doing a lot of fighting, but in OoP, Voldemort hasn't declared himself openly yet. So it's mostly spying, guard duty (Harry and/or the Prophecy), escorting Harry, mostly failed attempts to deal with werewolves and giants (we see Lupin talking to the new werewolf in St. Mungo's but never hear any more about it), and attempts to recruit new members (again, largely unsuccessful). What Emmeline Vance and Hestia Smith and poor old Elphias Doge and silly Dedalus Diggle do for the Order, aside from guard or escort duty, we aren't told, either because Harry doesn't know about it or because JKR hasn't given it much thought. Alla quoted: > "He came home really pleased with himself - even more pleased than usual if you can imagine that - and told Dad he'd been offered a position in Fudge's own office. A really good one for someone only a year out of Hogwarts - Junior Assistant to the Minister. He expected Dad to be all impressed, I think" - p.71 > > Alla: > > Funny, I have not reread this part for a long time, for a very long > time and when I read this paragraph, I actually thought that I will > be experiencing change of opinion on it. As some of you may know I > have hold Percy and only Percy responsible for this fight. > > Well, I do not like Percy much, never did, but when I read this paragraph and especially "He expected Dad to be all impressed I think", I for the first time EVER had some sympathy for him. It felt like teenager who got his first big break or so it seems to him, and who truly expects his family to be happy for him. OOOPS. His Dad barks at him instead. Carol: Exactly. Yes, Percy is pompous and annoying and chooses the Miistry (which we know to be flawed) over his family, but at this point, he's nineteen years old and, as you say, he's expecting his father to be proud of him, not to suggest that he's just a tool of the Ministry being used to spy on his family. Both Percy and his father were out of line, IMO--a very realistic depiction of what would happen in a real family. I've always felt some sympathy for Percy, so different from the rest of his family that he's always the butt of their jokes, and Percy doesn't know what we know about "that delightful woman," Dolores Umbridge. At this point, IMO, he still thinks he's in the right. Rather like Fudge, who doesn't want Voldemort to be back, he believes what he wants to believe (which happens to be exactly what Umbridge is saying). If that means disregarding what he's previously known or believed about DD and Harry and falling for the party line, he's ready to do that because it suits his desire to advance in the Ministry and his belief that the Ministry can do no wrong. (Good thing that Percy was brought up in a family of "blood traitors"; at least he's not advocating Pure-blood supremacy or joining the Death Eaters like Regulus Black.) But, as DD says with regard to Percy in HBP, it's easier to forgive others for being wrong than for being right, and even after LV is back, Percy can't bring himself to apologize. Not until DH, when he does it handsomely. But I'm jumping ahead, and I want to focus on OoP Percy, who really does seem like, in Ron's words, "the world's--biggest--git." This scene, told secondhand by family members who are angry at Percy," is almost our only indication that he does have some justification for his actions (except maybe sending back the jumper Molly knitted him; she's the only person in the family who shows him any understanding or love or sympathy). Carol, who sees both sides in Molly's argument with Sirius, but doesn't want to discuss it because her own reactions are emotion-based From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 22:25:59 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 22:25:59 -0000 Subject: The Cup, the Locket, the Sword, the Journey In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182594 Lenore wrote: > Pippin's post got me to thinking about some of the deep symbolic > meanings in the horcrux artefacts which have been haunting me for > some time. I tend to see everything in the context of our spiritual > Journey, including everything I read. > > The first horcrux we encounter in the books is actually the Wound, or Scar. But since we aren't aware of that at the time (and this fact is spiritually significant as well), the first one is the Diary. > > The Sword, for me, is a Sword of Discerning. It is very handy for > cutting through the illusion and exposing it, so we see it coming into use at many of the stages of the Journey. Carol responds: Forgive me for pointing this out, but the Sword of Gryffindor is not a Horcrux. Voldemort may well have intended or hoped to make it one, but he never succeeds. Instead, the sword, once it's been steeped in Basilisk venom, becomes a kind of anti-Horcrux, a weapon that can be used to destroy Horcruxes--not the diary, which is destroyed by a Basilisk fang (another ironic instance of the Heir of Slytherin's weapon, the Basilisk, being used against him), but the ring, the locket, and the snake. I don't want to get into the question of the hero's journey or a spiritual journey or any other sort of journey (even the journey to adulthood that constitutes the Bildungsroman). I just wanted to point out that the sword is not a Horcrux, accidental or otherwise. It's not even a Hallow. It's the sole surviving relic of Godric Gryffindor (not counting his hat, which now contains the "brains" of all four Founders), which comes to the aid of Gryffindors under certain conditions of "need and valor," cannot be reclaimed by Goblins despite Griphook's attempt, and becomes, through Harry's actions, capable of destroying Voldemort's Horcuxes, including the other Founder's objects. (It could have destroyed the Hufflepuff Cup and the Tiara, but Harry had lost it or perhaps forfeited it, and when it again goes to a Gryffindor, that Gryffindor is not Harry but Neville.) I'd be interested in hearing more of your interpretation of the other objects, one at a time, with canon support and analysis to show that there's something more to it than the way you read every book. (Not to question the validity of your interpretation for you, but would it work for readers who don't habitually read this way?) Carol, who would have liked to know the powers of the cup and the locket before they were Horcruxified (we know the power of the ring and the powers attributed to the diadem) and also what curses LV put on the cup (which may have poisoned or possessed anyone who drank out of it) From jkoney65 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 23:47:54 2008 From: jkoney65 at yahoo.com (jkoney65) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:47:54 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182595 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > Carol responds: > > I agree with you that the Hat itself is not responding to the plea for > help (surely, it's the Sword of Gryffindor that's responding, coming > out of the Hat only after Harry calls for help, with the hat having > been brought by Fawkes, not coming to Harry on its own). > > Also, I agree that Dumbledore, himself a Gryffindor, arranged those > particular protections for Gryffindor Harry: his own > Gryffindor-colored Phoenix, Fawkes, and the Sword of Gryffindor-- with > the Hat as not so much a conduit as a container that Fawkes can easily > grasp in his claws. That the Sword also comes out of the Sorting Hat > for Neville in DH (after LV has Summoned the Hat--it doesn't come on > its own) suggests that this particular arrangement was placed on it > either by Dumbledore bdfore Harry's encounter with Slytherin's > monster, or, more likely, by the original owner of the Sorting Hat, > Godric Gryffindor. And, with or without Dumbledore, the Sword responds > to Gryffindors under conditions of "need and valor." (I don't think it > would have come to a Gryffindor outside the school or the grounds had > it not been for Snape, however, and he, of course, was acting on > Portrait!DD's orders. It certainly didn't magically appear to Harry in > the graveyard in GoF or when he faced Nagini in DH, to give just two > examples. If the Sword appeared to him whenever he needed it, with or > without the Sorting Hat, his life would be much easier!) Geoff: Dumbledore's actual words are: '"You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."' (COS "Cornelius Fudge" p. 195 UK edition) Note two things. Help will be given "at Hogwarts" and also, not to "those who need" but to those "who ask". Which is a very different scenario. Jack-A-Roe responds: I think Geoff's quote answers alot of Carol's arguments. Help will be given at Hogwart's if you ask for it. The Chamber is part of Hogwarts and Harry did ask. By doing so he received the sword. I don't think Dumbledore did any preparation work. What he did was give us clue as to how Harry ended up with the sword. Fawkes was summoned by Harry's devotion to Dumbledore. As to why Fawkes grabbed the hat, I can only say that perhaps Fawkes is more intelligent then people give him credit for. Perhaps he knew that Harry could draw the sword out of the hat. Carol: > > As I said earlier, I think that DD knew that Harry would be facing a > Basilisk in the Chamber of Secrets and arranged his protections > accordingly. But *he* did not hear Harry's cry for help; he had been > evicted from the school by the Board of Governors under threat from > Lucius Malfoy. If it were the HoH who heard the plea, it would have > been McGonagall, not Dumbledore, who sent them, but it's clear from > both Diary!Tom's words about "Dumbledore's defender" (Harry) and DD's > own words in Hagrid's Hut that it's DD who arranged the protections to > be sent when the need arose. (The "songbird" and "old hat" appear when > Harry expresses loyalty to DD, and Fawkes blinds the Basilisk before > it can attack Harry, also crying to heal his wounds with Phoenix tears > just as he's about to expire from the venom; the sword appears only > when he cries for help, showing "need." he has already shown "valor" > by standing up to Memory!Tom--or Horcrux!Tom as I suppose we should > not call him.) Jack-A-Roe: If Dumbledore was really manipulating things would he have let Harry face a Basilisk alone. Fawkes didn't get there until after Harry would have had a chance to look at it. If he had looked into it's eyes than he would have died. That is not much of a plan. Carol: > Does "help will always come at Hogwarts to those who need it" really > apply? We see Snape saving Draco (and he also saves Montague from the > toilet after he finds a way out of the Vanishing Cabinet), and until > the Battle of Hogwarts, no one (except Quirrell, who has forfeited any > right to the school's protection) actually dies in the school or on > its grounds. Jack-A-Roe: What about Myrtle? Carol: If the school were as protected as Snape and DD believe it > is, DEs could not have gotten into the school in HBP. Neither, for > that matter, could Fake!Moody in GoF, Umbridge in OoP, and the Carrows > in DH. Jack-A-Roe: The DE's got in in HBP because they used the cabinet which circumvented all of the protections. No one other than Draco had thought of that idea. In DH, Snape was running the school and would have let them in. Umbridge didn't start out with attempting to hurt the students and that could be why she got through the wards. I thought the Sword only got covered in Basilisk blood. When did it get the venom on it? From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 23:57:06 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:57:06 -0000 Subject: Remus and Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182596 Jayne wrote: > > Talking of Patronus's. Lupin taught Harry to produce a patronus. > Do we ever find out what Lupin's was. > I don't remember ever seeing it in canon . > Please help Niru writes: I'm pretty sure we don't find out what Remus's patronus is in canon. In PoA we are just told that he "shot some silver stuff" at the dementors. While teaching Harry he never actually produces a patronus himself (although he obviously can). After that Remus is in battles in HBP an DH but again I can't remember him being faced with dementors. - Niru (with a slightly long-winded answer to your question :)) From g2rm2002 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 23:29:54 2008 From: g2rm2002 at yahoo.com (Gloria Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:29:54 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182597 Carol: >Is the > school actually providing protection, or is the protection being > provided by DD, Snape, Harry, and Harry's own uncanny luck? I think > the latter. If the school were as protected as Snape and DD believe it > is, DEs could not have gotten into the school in HBP. Neither, for > that matter, could Fake!Moody in GoF, Umbridge in OoP, and the Carrows > in DH. > > Carol, who thinks that DD really meant, "Help will come to you [Harry] > when you enter the CoS because I've arranged for your protection" > Hi, If the hat actually only gave help by sending objects or any other thing chosen by the Heads of House to the students who need it, the sword of Griffindor wouldn't have come to Neville's help when Nagini had to be murdered. Remember that - as far we learn in DH, Griphook had disappeared with the sword after entering the vault of the Lestranges in Gringotts. I do believe the hat has the original founder's magic in it and it decides on its own what is the best help to give students and when. As per Dumbledore making arrangements to protect Harry, in the DH we see that students at Howarts are being helped - and Harry was not among them. So, in a way, Dumbledore did make arrangements to protect any Howarts student who needed help. Regards, Gloria From g2rm2002 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 21 23:43:29 2008 From: g2rm2002 at yahoo.com (Gloria Rodriguez) Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:43:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182598 > Pippin: > Harry was able to conjure a corporeal patronus at the age of thirteen > and repel the imperius curse a year later. That is unusual per > canon. Surely it's more than a case of being motivated (if that's what > you mean by a matter of necessity.) It isn't at all clear to me that > the average student could have learned to cast a patronus at that age, > and most wizards are powerless against Imperius. > > I think those two achievements, which AFAWK have nothing to do with the > soul-bit, are sufficient to elevate Harry above "just an ordinary wizard > kid who's good at flying." > Regarding Harry's grades in his OWL's,... I do believe he is more of a practical-challenge-seeking person (in the essence of physical activity) than a theoretical one. Actually, in the quest for the hallows, it is Hermione's logical reasoning that leads them (Harry and Ron) to understand what Dumbledore's task for Harry is - even if she doesn't believe in their existance at first. Now, that Harry later starts putting the pieces together and reaches to the logical conclusion by himself, yes, that I cannot deny. But all through the books, the Harry we know is practical, he is an action person. He is not one to analyze things first and act later. So, in those subjects in which Harry had no chances of doing something that required practical skills - such as History of Magic, Potions and Herbology, he would definitely be an average student. Remember that the only reason why he is so good at Potions in HBP is because he is following other wizard's instructions - Snape's. Gloria From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 22 00:29:19 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 00:29:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182599 > > Pippin: > > Harry was able to conjure a corporeal patronus at the age of > thirteen > > and repel the imperius curse a year later. That is unusual per > > canon. Magpie: Harry does seem to have a knack for throwing off Imperius, but in the end it seemed like the main reason casting a Patronus at 13 was so unusual was that nobody teaches it. People seemed to be doing okay in the DA and some of them were 14 or average students. Kind of sad for Hermione getting a lower grade on her DADA OWL when Harry got extra credit for producing his Patronus and wowing everyone when she could have done it too for extra credit. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 01:15:18 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:15:18 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182600 Geoff wrote: > I'm rather inclined to side with Shelley in that a genuine call for help would go to the respective House Head. Carol responds: Can you show any evidence to support that theory? Granted, Snape comes running when Moaning calls for help in "Sectumsempra," and it's a member of his house (Draco Malfoy) who's in trouble, but (if we take interviews as canon), Myrtle is a Revenclaw, and Snape has promised two people (DD and Narcissa) that he'll watch and protect Draco. it could be the fiery bonds of his Unbreakable Vow summoning him to help Draco as easily as it could be the magic of the school summoning his Head of House. But there's no evidence of McGonagall's involvement and every evidence of DD's: Fawkes is his Phoenix and the Sorting Hat is kept in his office, as is the Sword of Gryffindor afterwards (I don't know about before because Harry never sees DD's office until after he kills the Basilisk). Diary!Tom talks about the protections that DD has sent his defender (a songbird and an old hat), and his explanation is not questioned or corrected afterwards, and DD speaks in Hagrid's hut about loyalty to himself (meaning, I take it, that Fawkes will respond) and the remark below about help coming at Hogwarts "to those who ask for it." Either DD set up those protections or he knew that they would come into play. And he made sure that Harry heard his words before he left Hogwarts. McGonagall, Harry's HoH, had nothing to do with it. Nor do I recall a single instance of her coming to Harry's or Ron's or Hermione's aid *unsummoned.* (When Harry has the vision of Nagini biting Mr. Weasley, Neville runs off to summon McGonagall.) Geoff: > But, looking at Dumbledore's part in this, Carol suggests that Dumbledore arranged for Fawkes and the Sword to go to Harry's aid because he knew that Harry would face a basilisk. > > But did he? > "She has been petrified," said Dumbledore ("Ah! I thought so!" said > Lockhart). "But how. I cannot say..." > "Ask him!" shrieked Filch, turning his blotched and tear-stained > face to Harry. > "No second year could have done this," said Dumbledore firmly. > "It would take magic of the most advanced...."' > (COS "The Writing on the Wall" p.108 UK edition) Carol responds: DD, as we know, doesn't always express his theories out loud, and Lockhart, Filch, and Harry are present. (He may or may not say something of his suspicions to Snape, who is also present, and later discovers that Harry is a Parselmouth.) The writing on the wall this first time around says, "the Chamber of Secrets has been opened. Enemies of the Heir, Beware" (COS Am. ed. 138). Dumbledore knows who opened the Chamber before, and he either knows or has a very shrewd idea of that "the Heir" is "the Heir of Slytherin," whom he knows to be Tom Riddle. As DD tells McGonagall in the hospital wing when Colin Creevey has been Petrified, "The question is not *who.* The question is *how*" (CoS Am. ed. 180). He also confirms that the attack on Colin means that "the Chamber of Secrets is indeed open again" (180). In short, Voldemort, has somehow opened the Chamber again and released the same monster that killed Moaning Myrtle (and which, as I understand it, also Petrified some victims before it killed Myrtle). But the present danger is from the monster itself, not from Voldemort, who is currently vaporized. Carol earlier, misquoting DD: > > > Now, DD does say that "help will always come at Hogwarts to those > who need it," but I'm not sure how true that statement is. Geoff: > It isn't. Dumbledore's actual words are: > '"You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it."' Carol again: Sorry about the misquotation. I should have looked up the exact wording, as I did in a previous post in this thread. But the exact wording has no bearing on my point, which was that I'm not sure that help is always given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it. Help *is* however, given to Harry, and it seems from these words and other evidence that I've cited that the help comes from Dumbledore, not the Sorting Hat and not Harry's Head of House. Geoff: > Basilisks kill by looking; this much Dumbledore would know. But what previous evidence of one of these creatures causing petrification is there? Carol responds: What evidence is there that any other creature can Petrify its victims? And last time the monster was released, a girl *did* die, with no sign of an attack. (IIRC, the monster Petrified some victims before it killed Myrtle; I don't think that she was the only victim.) An Acromantula, as the MoM should have known, would have left a bite mark or eaten its victim. A Manticore or Chimaera is uncontrollable even by a Dark Wizard, whereas DD would know that a Parselmouth--whether Slytherin himself or Voldemort--can control a Basilisk. He would also know that Basilisks can live to a great age, Herpo the Foul's having reputedly lived for nearly nine hundred years (FB 4). Geoff: Also, since when did a Basilisk write messages on walls? There is obviously a human agency at work here, whatever else may be involved. So, I am not totally swayed by the theory that Dumbledore set up the Phoenix situation knowing what Harry was likely to face. Carol responds: As I said before, he knew that Voldemort, the Heir of Slytherin, was involved in some way, actually opening the Chamber of Secrets as he did before and controlling the monster, which only attacks Muggle-borns (and a Squib's cat) and does not go rampaging through the corridors as a Chimaera or Manticore would. A Basilisk, in contrast, *can* be controlled, but only by a Parselmouth. DD also seems to know that Colin, at least, did not view the monster directly but saw it through his camera lens. What monster other than a Basilisk could have turned the film to ashes without destroying the camera as well? Moreover, DD well knows that the monster was originally placed in the Chamber of Secrets by Salazar Slytherin, himself a Parselmouth, the symbol of whose house is a snake, with the expectation that it could survive for many years, even centuries, until "his own true heir" came to the school. And DD would know that the monster that would best serve all these purposes (and could easily be hatched in secret by Slytherin from a chicken egg hatched beneath a toad) is a Basilisk. > Geoff: > I reiterate what I suggested previously. What made him think that Harry would go looking for the Chamber - or if he did that he would succeed where others hadn't over the centuries? Carol responds: I think I mentioned before that he knows that Harry tried to stop "Snape" from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone. He has given Harry an Invisibility Cloak, encouraging him to "use it wisely," and has in general encouraged his habit of wandering around after hours. He knows already that Harry and his friends like to solve mysteries or consider themselves detectives and he says that he's kept a closer eye on Harry than Harry can imagine (can't remember the exact quote). And once he learns that Harry, like Voldemort is a Parselmouth and can therefore find and open the Chamber, as DD himself cannot, and Harry has been falsely accused of being the Heir of Slytherin and opening the CoS, and especially after Hermione is Petrified, it's almost a foregone conclusion that he (and Ron) will attempt it. If DD doesn't think that Harry is going to enter the Chamber of Secrets, why on earth does he give that advice about loyalty to himself and help always coming at Hogwarts to those who ask for it? What is the point of those remarks, which he hangs back to make before accompanying Lucius Malfoy and Fudge, if he doesn't think that Harry (and possibly Ron, who is hiding under the Invisibility Cloak with him) will attempt to get into the Chamber and that Harry, as a Parselmouth, has an excellent chance of succeeding where others, including DD himself, have failed? Harry is "almost sure that Dumbledore's eyes flickered toward the corner where he and Ron stood hidden" (264). IOW, DD, whom we know can see beneath Invisibility Cloaks, is speaking those words for Harry's benefit. (They are certainly not for Fudge's or Lucius Malfoy's or Hagrid's.) Geoff: > I think that it all revolved on luck and a series of fortunate coincidences. Much of real life is like that after all. Carol responds: I don't deny that luck and coincidence play a role in this series (the incident with the Snatchers in DH being a case in point), nor that Harry has more than his share of luck. But Dumbledore's words are inexplicable if he doesn't suspect that Harry and Ron will attempt to enter the Chamber of Secrets, especially now that Hermione has been Petrified, and if he doesn't expect Harry, as a Parselmouth, to succeed where he has failed. So, anticipating that at some point Harry will show loyalty to him (perhaps encountering some shadow form of Voldemort?), he provides his "defender" with Fawkes, the Phoenix, who can help him fight the Basilisk and heal his wounds. And knowing that Harry will be facing a monster far beyond his skill to kill with his wand, he makes sure that Fawkes brings along the "old hat" from which Harry can draw, after showing need and valor, the Sword of Gryffindor, which has magical powers of its own beyond a sharp blade. (Sidenote: I always expected the powers attributed to rubies to come into play but JKR never mentions them.) How can Fawkes know that the Sword will come out of the Sorting Hat if DD hasn't told him? (Maybe that can communicate telepathically since DD can summon him to the MoM, but it makes more sense that DD, anticipating Harry's actions and his needs, set up the protections before hand rather than merely relying on what might happen if Harry called for help. Fawkes, after all, arrives, Sorting Hat in beak, *before* Harry calls for help. Geoff: > Note two things. Help will be given "at Hogwarts" and also, not to "those who need" but to those "who ask". Which is a very different scenario. Carol: Yes and no. As I just said, Fawkes arrives *before* Harry asks for help, and the Sword of Gryffindor is enchanted to help Gryffindors who show need and valor--nothing there about asking for help. In that instance, coincidence and luck certainly do come into play, since Voldemort himself summons the Sorting Hat. But Neville never asks for help. It comes to him without asking, partly as the result of Harry's self-sacrifice (which has made Voldemort's magic backfire or fail) and partly as a result of the spell on the Sword, which deserts the Goblin Griphook and comes to valiant Neville in his need. But whether help comes to anyone who asks for it at Hogwarts--a teacher rather than a student, a Slytherin or Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff rather than a Gryffindor--I still don't know. I certainly see no evidence that the HoH will come running. Perhaps you could show me an example other than Snape saving Draco in "sectumsempra"? Geoff: > However, as I said in the beginning, my main point was that > Dumbledore did not necessarily foresee how events would unfold. Carol: I've already argued that his words in Hagrid's hut indicate otherwise. I think that he had faith in Harry, but only if Harry had exactly the sort of help he would need to fight Slytherin's monster. The only question in my mind is whether he also thought that Harry would encounter the Heir of Slytherin (Tom Riddle or Voldemort) in some form and, if so, how he thought that Fawkes and the Sword of Gryffindor would help him. However, Fawkes swallows an AK intended for Dumbledore in OoP, so he could have done that in Cos as well. But there is no doubt in my mind, none at all, that DD knew that Harry would open the CoS and encounter the Basilisk, or that the help DD supplied was specifically designed to meet that need. As for the properties of Phoenixes, in addition to the healing power of Phoenix tears, one that I mentioned in an earlier post is particularly relevant with regard to Harry as DD perceives him: "Phoenix song is magical; it is reputed to increase the courage of the pure of heart and to strike fear into the hearts of the impure" (32). We see this particular property at work in the graveyard scene in GoF, where Harry hears Phoenix song as the result of the brother wands with their Phoenix-feather cores doing battle. (In CoS, the phoenix song doesn't so much give him courage as inspire him to call for help, at which point, the magic comes into play and the Basilisk's tail flicks the Sorting Hat toward him, he puts it on, calls for help again, and the Sword falls onto his head. (Perhaps the Sorting Hat hears him and releases it, but I think that the Sword itself if responding, as it does for Neville in DH.) I think there's something in the mythology of Basilisks about Phoenixes being immune to their poison, but I don't have time to Google it right now. The narrator, voicing Harry's perspective, asks rhetorically, "But what chance did a phoenix have against the king of serpents?" (318). A few moments later, Fawkes answers the question by blinding the Basilisk. And there's also the ability of the Phoenix to carry heavy loads, demonstrated when he carries Harry, Ron, Lockhart, and Ginny, all of them clinging to his tail feathers or to each other. Harry would need a way out of the Chamber of Secrets. Fawkes provides that, too. Geoff: > It might have been sheer serendipity that he sent Fawkes - if he did and the bird didn't act on its own because it sensed Harry's loyalty. CaroL: Sheer serendipity to send a bird whose tears have healing powers, whose song gives courage to the pure of heart, that can blind a Basilisk, that can carry heavy loads, that is smart enough to obey orders such as bringing a Sorting Hat, which surely Fawkes would not have thought to do on his own? *If* it were just a matter of loyalty to Dumbledore and *if* Fawkes had not also brought the Sorting Hat and *if* DD hadn't spoken those words to Harry (and Ron) in Hagrid's Hut, I'd think that it might just be serendipity or Fawkes acting on his own. But all those factors together, combined with Dumbledore's knowledge of Voldemort and Slytherin and Basilisks, makes me think otherwise. Geoff: There is much about Phoenixes of which we are not aware; like much of the Wizarding World, there is an 'unwritten canon' - for want of a better term - whose presence we seem to sense but which we haven't got in black and white. Carol: I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean the properties of Phoenixes as JKR imagined them? I think we can see many of those properties in canon, including some that aren't relevant here--the ability to send messages or to rise from their own ashes. Certainly, the Phoenix-feather core, with its associations with immortality, is relevant to both Harry and Voldemort (as is the symbolism and or the powers of the wand wood, holly on the one hand and yew on the other). And FB is some help (though not as much as I'd like). I'm pretty sure that we've had threads on Basilisks in relation to weasels before (is Ginny "Weasely" relevant here?). Possibly, there's some similar legend or mythology related to Basilisks and Phoenixes. I'll leave that to the classicists. All I know is that DD knew that help would come to Harry, he had a good idea of what Harry would be facing, and the combination of Fawkes and the Sword of Gryffindor was better than anything else he could have sent. Carol, tempted to look up Basilisks and Phoenixes in a Google search but deciding against it for the moment From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 01:44:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:44:20 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182601 Jack-A-Roe wrote: > > > I thought the Sword only got covered in Basilisk blood. When did it > get the venom on it? Carol responds: Harry stabbed the Basilisk through the mouth. Hermione says in DH that merely "ripping, smashing, or crushing" a Horcrux won't destroy it. It has to be destroyed "beyond magical repair" by Basilisk venom or a similarly destructive substance (DH Am. ed.104). She also says that if she ran Ron through with a sword, she wouldn't damage his soul at all. We can deduce from a combination of those remarks that just stabbing or cracking a Horcrux with the Sword of Gryffindor would not destroy the Horcrux unless the blade had been steeped in Basilisk venom. That the sword did indeed absorb Basilisk venom, making it capable of destroying the soul bit in a Horcrux, is confirmed later. To quote from my own message 182332 (minus typos): "In 'The Goblin's Revenge,' after Phineas Nigellus has told HRH that the last time he saw the Sword of Gryffindor was when DD used it to break open a ring, Hermione says, 'The sword can destroy Horcruxes! Goblin-made blades imbibe only that which strengthens them--Harry, that sword's impregnated with basilisk venom!' (DH Am. ed. 304)" For more details, you're welcome to read the original post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182332 Sidenote: I just came across another reference to the Sword of Gryffindor coming to any worthy Gryffindor under certain conditions. Rufus Scrimgeour says, "According to reliable historical sources, the sword may present itself to any worthy Gryffindor" (DH Am. ed. a29). Dumbledore must have known that as well as Scrimgeour does. However, he has particular reason for trying to will it to Harry (or mention it in his will with reference to Harry since, as Scrimgeour points out, it isn't really Dumbledore's to give, or Harry's despite his having once pulled it out of the Sorting hat). And that reason is, of course, its ability to destroy Horcruxes now that it has absorbed the Basilisk venom. Carol, who has already answered your other points upthread From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 02:36:08 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 02:36:08 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182602 Gloria wrote: > Regarding Harry's grades in his OWL's,... I do believe he is more of a practical-challenge-seeking person (in the essence of physical activity) than a theoretical one. But all through the books, the Harry we know is practical, he is an action person. He is not one to analyze things first and act later. > > So, in those subjects in which Harry had no chances of doing something that required practical skills - such as History of Magic, Potions and Herbology, he would definitely be an average student. > Remember that the only reason why he is so good at Potions in HBP is because he is following other wizard's instructions - Snape's. Carol responds: I agree that Harry is action-oriented, and I've already explained why I think he could cast such a good Patronus at an early age (special help from Lupin, a Boggart!Dementor that meant he could face a realistic Dementor substitute which even caused him to feel fear under safe conditions, and the incentive of dealing with the Dementors who were causing him to lose at Quidditch). So Harry, as you imply, is better with a wand than he is with a pen, which would make him better at his practical courses than he is at his theoretical ones. However, he's also better at DADA than he is at Charms and Transfiguration, in both of which he got an E, not an O, not because those classes don't also require wandwork but because, IMO, he has a particular incentive for learning DADA (at least in PoA, where he's facing Dementors; in GoF, where he's facing dragons, grindylows, and monsters in a maze; and in OoP, where he's actually teaching other students because the teacher is totally useless--not to mention that he knows that voldemort is back. In HBP, he masters the Prince's jinxes, hexes, and charms, even the ones, without effort, but resists nonverbal DADA because Snape is teaching it! (irony) Also, I disagree that he didn't excel at Potions and Herbology because they don't require practical skills. Both of them are essentially lab courses, just as the wand-centered courses are, with a theoretical component (which the wand-centered courses also have). Whether he's teaching Potions or DADA, Snape requires his students to write essays. So do McGonagall, Slughorn, Flitwick, and the Astronomy teacher, Professor Sinistra (IIRC). About the only class I can think of that doesn't have both a practical and a theoretical component (other than Muggle Studies, which Harry doesn't take) is History of Magic (which, aside from being all reading and writing, is taught by the most boring teacher in the school). I agree that Harry does well in Potions in HBP because he's following the HBP!Snape's instructions (and Snape, unlike Harry, is a Potions genius), but I'm not sure that Harry retains anything that he learns in that class (other than the uses of Felix Felicis). He goes back to his usual mediocre performance after he hides the book in the RoR. He does, however, remember and use the HBP's spells. His performance on the Potions OWL shows that he can manage an E when he and Snape aren't distracting each other. The grade is no better and no worse than his grade in Transfiguration, Charms, and Herbology. (DADA is the only O.) What I don't understand is how either he or Ron got an E in anything other than DADA. Their practical work (wandwork) seems to be about average (look how much talking they do in Charms, for example), and as for the theoretical component, I don't see how either of them learned anything with Hermione writing so many of their essays for them, or at least correcting what they've written. (Doesn't JKR know that copying someone else's essay is plagiarism and can get you expelled?) Anyway, I don't think we can tell much about Harry's abilities from his OWL grades. Nor am I sure that he has a natural aptitude for DADA (though like most of the students, at least the boys, he likes the concept of it--duelling and defensive spells and being allowed to jinx each other in class. Wow!) Too bad most of his DADA classes weren't actually like that. If Harry hadn't been dealing with the prospect of fighting Voldemort and all the other things that distract him in the books, would he have been a better student? I don't think so. His one indisputable natural ability is flying/Quidditch (Parseltongue and the scar connection are obviously not natural to him). He might have done better in the practical classes without the distraction of Voldemort and the animosity between him and Snape, but he might also have spent a lot of time time in detention, like his father, rather than studying. Good grades and books and ideas don't matter to him. Friendship and Quidditch and, eventually, girls, are more important. And Harry, despite a tendency to procrastinate, puts time and effort into what he thinks is important. We don't see him inventing anything, like Severus Snape and the Marauders and the Weasley Twins. He likes action better than thinking. I'm not saying that he's stupid; he seems to have above-average intelligence. But he's not a genius. In fact, I'll bet that the adult Harry is a lot like Rufus Scrimgeour, a man of action who spends most of his adult life fighting Dark Wizards and is not likely to underestimate them. Carol, who forgot to mention Harry's generally good instincts when he's faced with danger, an asset more likely to help him outside Hogwarts than inside From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 03:06:44 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:06:44 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182603 Carol: < HUGE SNIP> What I don't understand is how either he or Ron got an E in anything other than DADA. Their practical work (wandwork) seems to be about average (look how much talking they do in Charms, for example), and as for the theoretical component, I don't see how either of them learned anything with Hermione writing so many of their essays for them, or at least correcting what they've written. (Doesn't JKR know that copying someone else's essay is plagiarism and can get you expelled?) Anyway, I don't think we can tell much about Harry's abilities from his OWL grades. Nor am I sure that he has a natural aptitude for DADA (though like most of the students, at least the boys, he likes the concept of it--duelling and defensive spells and being allowed to jinx each other in class. Wow!) Too bad most of his DADA classes weren't actually like that. < HUGE SNIP> Alla: Then based on what we can tell much about Harry's abilities if not his grades? And, um, I understand that you do not make much of Harry's natural abilities for DADA, but this is absolutely the situation where I believe what JKR said to be just an extra support to what is already in the books. And I am pretty sure that she said that Harry's instincts in DA are natural or something like that. I do NOT believe that Harry is a genuis of course in anything but DADA, yet in DADA I believe he is very close to one or at least meant to be portrayed as such, Voldemort or not. But I see no reason to downplay Harry's abilities either. He IS curious, he does pick the books sometimes. After all he is curious enough to open the books before he comes to Hogwarts. He is of course no Hermione, but he is IMO quite intelligent kid, who earned his Es, well my take would be because he indeed earned them. Does he care much for studies? Sure he cares for action first and foremost, but as I said the fact that he opens his books before he even starts his studies tells me that had he cared he could have done even more with his studies. From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 22 03:08:22 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:08:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: <000401c8a3cb$16421fe0$c7ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182604 > Jerri wrote: > I do wonder how Snape is supposed to have communicated with Grimauld > Place in general and Sirius in particular toward the end of OoP. DD > told Harry that the Order had better means of communication than > Umbridge's fireplace, and later at JKR's web site the Order's > communication was explained as the special modification of the > patronous charm. Potioncat: It's not a popular explanation, but I think is one of those moments JKR referred to in which she had painted herself in a corner. I'm not sure if she noticed, though. In PoA DD tells Harry that the Order has more efficient means of communication. And JKR confirmed (I think) that the method was Messenger Patronuses. So I think it was pretty clear that JKR was thinking that Snape had sent a Messenger Patronus to 12 GP. Only, that doesn't work if it would reveal to everyone that Snape loves/is- devoted-to Lily. I've seen several very good explanations of what Snape may have done rather than send a Patronus (in fanfic form) but I think JKR overlooked this important detail of a problem. From tkjones9 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 03:34:15 2008 From: tkjones9 at yahoo.com (Tandra) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 03:34:15 -0000 Subject: Random Questions....SS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182605 I just picked up SS the other day and started reading, a couple of questions came to me. 1) SO the students go to Hogwarts to learn magical stuff BUT what about the basics, math, reading, writing etc? I know that the Muggle-borns like Harry would have gone to regular school but what about the children brought up in the Wizarding homes? I hope that made sense... 2) Why is there no sort of ruckus when Hagrid does magic in the hut? He gives Dudley a tail and makes a fire. Why was that not noticed by the ministry? And in keeping with that question....why didn't Lilly get in trouble when she came home and turned teacups into gerbils or w/e it was Petunia said. Ok I'm done for now. I never seem to make my questions make any sense so anyone that can help thx. TJ From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 04:30:59 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:30:59 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182606 Mike: Put on your safety glasses as I throw in my two knuts. I think it was the Hat that brings the Sword, through it's own magical ability. The Sword is only summoned magically twice and both times it comes from the Hat. It may need to be "taken under conditions of need and valor" in order to function properly, but there is no indication that those same conditions will summon the Sword to a true Gryffindor. On the contrary, Snape has to become the modus of transport to get the Sword to Harry in the Forest of Dean. The Sorting Hat is a magical object and it seems a quite powerful one too. According to canon, it has brains of the four founders in it, every year it composes a song that addresses the current climate of the WW and then proceeds to magically and unerringly sort all incoming Hogwarts students. We are not given the method, but this seems to be a very powerfully magical ability. When I combine the traits and abilities with which the Hat is imbued with the fact that the Sword only appears magically from within it, I don't see why I shouldn't believe that it was the Hat that caused the Sword to appear. Not Dumbledore, not Godric, the Hat and it's own magic. > Carol responds: > > > every evidence of DD's: Fawkes is his Phoenix and the Sorting Hat > is kept in his office, as is the Sword of Gryffindor afterwards > (I don't know about before because Harry never sees DD's office > until after he kills the Basilisk). Mike: Actually Harry does visit Dumbledore's office before he ventures into the CoS. He was sent to DD's office by McGonnigall after the Justin and NHN petrifications. This is where he first meets Fawkes and he puts the Sorting Hat on and gets a re-visitation of his sorting. I like Steve's postulation that the Sword of Gryffindor was lost to time before it gets summoned to Harry in the Chamber. Had it been in DD's office before this, I feel certain that Harry would have noticed it, after all it sits on the shelf next to the hat from CoS on afterward. It's not something that would be easily overlooked. > Carol: > Diary!Tom talks about the protections that DD has sent his > defender (a songbird and an old hat), and his explanation is > not questioned or corrected afterwards, Mike: Harry was the only one that heard those words and he has no motivation or reason to recall them to Dumbledore afterwards for possible correction. Conversely, Dumbledore unbidden thanks Harry for showing him great loyalty, as that's the only thing that would have summoned Fawkes. There is no place in this conversation for Harry to question Tom's words or for Dumbledore to correct them. And, Harry's loyalty to DD caling forth Fawkes was a form of DD providing Fawkes to Harry. But not so the Hat. Whether Fawkes, undoubtedly a very intelligent and magical animal, knows the Hat is also magically helpful, I can only speculate. It does seem that magical objects and beings in the Potterverse recognize other magical things. > Carol: > Either DD set up those protections or he knew that they would > come into play. And he made sure that Harry heard his words > before he left Hogwarts. Mike: I'll grant that DD could have been the one to instruct Fawkes to bring the Hat to a Gryffindor in need. DD could very well have been aware of the Hat's additional abilities, if anyone was. But I still go along with Geoff's version, the Hat summoned the Sword, DD didn't magically hide the Sword in the Hat. My reading hinges on one simple fact, DD was not available and for sure didn't have access to the Sword in DH. Yet the Hat summoned the Sword for another Gryffindor in need and without any reasonable way for DD to have caused it. The only other option is that the Sword itself is the actor. But then why would we need the Hat? And why would Snape need to bring the Sword to Harry via his doe Patronus? > Carol again: > > > that I'm not sure that help is always given at Hogwarts to those > who ask for it. Help *is* however, given to Harry, and it seems > from these words and other evidence that I've cited that the help > comes from Dumbledore, not the Sorting Hat Mike: But help comes to Neville, and it comes from the Hat, not Dumbledore. Dumbledore is dead, speaking through his portrait. My reading does not include Dumbledore being able to do any magic in the physical world during DH. So how does he get the Sword to Neville? If, however, it is the Hat that summons the Sword. we need no more explanation. > > Geoff: > > I reiterate what I suggested previously. What made him think that > > Harry would go looking for the Chamber - or if he did that he > > would succeed where others hadn't over the centuries? > > Carol responds: > > And once he learns that Harry, like Voldemort is a Parselmouth and > can therefore find and open the Chamber, as DD himself cannot, and > Harry has been falsely accused of being the Heir of Slytherin and > opening the CoS, and especially after Hermione is Petrified, it's > almost a foregone conclusion that he (and Ron) will attempt it. Mike: I agree with Carol here. Not only was Dumbledore confident that Harry would go searching for the entrance to the CoS, Manipulative!DD probably very much wants Harry to get in there. He is providing clues and hints aplenty to aid Harry in his quest should he succeed in finding and entering the Chamber. And what were the chances that DD forgot that Harry was in the hospital wing when he and McG carry the petrified Colin in? > Carol responds: > > and if he doesn't expect Harry, as a Parselmouth, to succeed > where he has failed. Mike: A quick point here. I'm not sure that DD can't speak Parseltongue. He sure seems to understand it when the Gaunts speak it. And since Ron was able to mimic Harry to get the CoS open, I find it hard to conceive of it thwarting Dumbledore. Therefore, I don't think DD even tried to get into the CoS, both for purpose of JKR's plot and because he wouldn't have a reason to tempt fate and do battle with a Basilisk when he was sure that it would never be called forth again. I'm sure he didn't expect another Parselmouth to come to Hogwarts, didn't expect Tom to make the Diary and imbed it with a piece of his soul, and when it was actually re-opened possibly viewed it as another training ground for Harry rather than something to just stop up himself. > > Geoff: > > However, as I said in the beginning, my main point was that > > Dumbledore did not necessarily foresee how events would unfold. > > Carol: > I've already argued that his words in Hagrid's hut indicate > otherwise. I think that he had faith in Harry, but only if Harry > had exactly the sort of help he would need to fight Slytherin's > monster. Mike: I'm of two minds on this question. (I know, blimey what a waste of parchment. ) On the one hand, I can't conceive of DD not sussing out the monster being a Basilisk. OTOH, would DD chance his champion being killed this early on in the battle against Voldemort? > Carol: > The only question in my mind is whether he also thought that > Harry would encounter the Heir of Slytherin (Tom Riddle or > Voldemort) in some form and, if so, how he thought that Fawkes > and the Sword of Gryffindor would help him. Mike: As you have pointed out, DD is aware that Voldemort is still around in his vapor form and in Albania. I don't think DD is aware of the Diary nor that it is a Horcrux until after the encounter. I think DD already suspects Tom has made Horcrux(es) and may already suspect that Harry has a piece of Voldemort's soul in him. His comments in the wrap-up debrief suggested this to many of us. Like you, I can't figure how DD would expect Harry to encounter some form of Tom/LV. But if I wanted to think the worst of DD, I would say that he wanted Harry to get into this scrap and either prove himself worthy of further training or die trying. And if DD suspected Harry!Crux, he would also know that Basilisk venom would destroy a Horcrux. One down, some unknown number to go. I can't see even the most manipulative version of Dumbledore being that cold. Others mileage may vary. Mike, wondering just how much of a bastard was this Dumbledore guy From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 15:43:42 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:43:42 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182607 Oh, heavens, I just saw somebody go by, walking a little dog that was wearing a little pink shirt and a diaper. O.o Where was I...? Oh, yeah, HP... Well, Mike, I pretty much agree with your post. Just a few quick comments: --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Mike" wrote: > > Mike: > I think it was the Hat that brings the Sword, through it's own > magical ability. The Sword is only summoned magically twice and both > times it comes from the Hat. It may need to be "taken under > conditions of need and valor" in order to function properly, but > there is no indication that those same conditions will summon the > Sword to a true Gryffindor. On the contrary, Snape has to become the > modus of transport to get the Sword to Harry in the Forest of Dean. Annemehr: Seriously good point. So is your observation (snipped) that DD was not around to hide the sword in the hat in DH. Not to mention, it was in Goblin hands at the time, anyway. > > Carol responds: > > > > and if he doesn't expect Harry, as a Parselmouth, to succeed > > where he has failed. > > Mike: > A quick point here. I'm not sure that DD can't speak Parseltongue. Annemehr: I find it impossible to believe that DD was not a Parselmouth. He certainly understood everything the Gaunts said in that language. This in turn, along with the petrifications, makes it more than likely that he knew Riddle was unleashing a basilisk all those years ago. Either that, or it's one tremendous plot hole. I haven't decided which it is, yet. (There are plenty of plot holes, in any case.) > Mike: > On the one hand, I can't conceive of DD not sussing > out the monster being a Basilisk. OTOH, would DD chance his champion > being killed this early on in the battle against Voldemort? > > > Carol: > > The only question in my mind is whether he also thought that > > Harry would encounter the Heir of Slytherin (Tom Riddle or > > Voldemort) in some form and, if so, how he thought that Fawkes > > and the Sword of Gryffindor would help him. > > Mike: > As you have pointed out, DD is aware that Voldemort is still around > in his vapor form and in Albania. I don't think DD is aware of the > Diary nor that it is a Horcrux until after the encounter. I think DD > already suspects Tom has made Horcrux(es) and may already suspect > that Harry has a piece of Voldemort's soul in him. His comments in > the wrap-up debrief suggested this to many of us. > > Like you, I can't figure how DD would expect Harry to encounter some > form of Tom/LV. But if I wanted to think the worst of DD, I would say > that he wanted Harry to get into this scrap and either prove himself > worthy of further training or die trying. And if DD suspected > Harry!Crux, he would also know that Basilisk venom would destroy a > Horcrux. One down, some unknown number to go. > > I can't see even the most manipulative version of Dumbledore being > that cold. Others mileage may vary. > > Mike, wondering just how much of a bastard was this Dumbledore guy > Annemehr: DD expected Harry to encounter some form of LV/Riddle because the Chamber is being opened by some form of LV/Riddle. The way DD speaks of Harry's scar in PS/SS indicates that he has some knowledge of what it is. How, you ask? Through the prophecy, perhaps? Through that ability he showed in HBP to "sense magic"? We are never told, but the fact is evident that DD knew *this* scar was special -- after all, there's not a hint of any other "scar magic" in the story, and plenty of healing or lamenting of other scars. Add to this your observation that at the end of CoS, DD exhibits knowledge that there's "a bit of" LV in Harry. Since when? Since the Parseltongue incident in the dueling club, or even before? Maybe since the first time he looked into Harry's eyes (as OoP shows he can see LV there)? Before that, even? Is it just one HUGE coincidence that DD's lieutenent (or stooge), Snape, had Draco set a snake on Harry? DD either knows things, or this is atrocious writing. And I have to say, it really does seem that DD *is* "that cold." We know he let Tom Riddle go and do as he willed, when Riddle left school, after turning Riddle down for a job, even though DD knew just what kind of person he was. He KNEW Tom was a murderer. And don't forget, he lived in the same castle as one of the victims -- Myrtle -- whom nobody ever asked about her death until Harry did. DD didn't need to, because he already knew. Or, it's another plot hole, eh? As you point out, DD knew Harry had a bit of LV's soul. In dealing with this, does he act for the greater good? He trained Harry to face LV. He brought Harry to the point where he could "sacrifice" his life in such a way that the soul bit would be destroyed while Harry had at least a chance of surviving. This is the ONLY answer to "why Harry?" Otherwise, why not re-vaporise the old reprobate and take your own sweet time finding all the Hxes? As for the question of DD risking his champion too early, well, it was all necessary to getting Harry to that crucial sacrificial moment. And should Harry fail, then as you point out, it's one Horcrux down. Meanwhile, of course, countless other people had their lives taken or ruined before the big sacrificial moment arrived. " 'I cared about you too much,' said Dumbledore simply. 'I cared [...] more for your life than the lives that might be lost if the plan failed.' " (OoP ch. 37) What about the lives lost because the plan succeeded, eh? Annemehr, thinking idly that DD ought to have just made Vapor!Mort himself into a Horcrux and stuck him on the shelf next to the Hat and the Sword. From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 22 11:22:49 2008 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (becks3uk) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:22:49 -0000 Subject: Random Questions....SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182608 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > > I just picked up SS the other day and started reading, a couple of > questions came to me. > > 1) SO the students go to Hogwarts to learn magical stuff BUT what > about the basics, math, reading, writing etc? I know that the > Muggle-borns like Harry would have gone to regular school but what > about the children brought up in the Wizarding homes? I hope that made > sense... > > 2) Why is there no sort of ruckus when Hagrid does magic in the hut? > He gives Dudley a tail and makes a fire. Why was that not noticed by > the ministry? And in keeping with that question....why didn't Lilly > get in trouble when she came home and turned teacups into gerbils or > w/e it was Petunia said. > becks3uk: 1) - this has always bothered me, I guess we can only assume that their parents teach them maths and English at home but I would assume then that there would therefore be a lot of wizards and witches with very poor numeracy and literacy! Lol! I think it was probably easier for JKR not to have to think about additional lessons like that, perhaps they have them but we never see them? I mean, we've never seen a muggle studies lesson or an ancient runes class have we? (But then I suppose Harry doesn't study those). Basically I think we are to assume that wizarding parents teach all that basic stuff at home before Hogwarts. 2) I think Hagrid could have easily got away with doing magic, I mean they only really keep tabs on underage wizards and even then it can get overlooked. (They can only detect magic, not who cast the spell. (Can someone find canon for this? I know I recall it somewhere). I think JKR once said that in wizarding families it was down to the parents to make sure they didn't do magic out of school. Harry is a special case. In OOTP during Harry's hearing, Madam Bones mentions that they have always kept a close eye on Little Whinging because of Harry (and he is the only wizard living there) but they weren't in Little Whinging when Hagrid did magic. As for Lily, again I can't remember where I read it but I definitely read JKR mentioning Petunia was exaggerating there. becks From becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 22 11:30:13 2008 From: becks3uk at yahoo.co.uk (becks3uk) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 11:30:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: <000401c8a3cb$16421fe0$c7ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182609 > > Carol > > I expected JKR to explain what Snape's recommended Dementor protection > was. SNIP Becks3uk: I have always assumed that Snape's preferred method for defense against Dementors is to employ occlumency against them. (They can't feed off your happy memories if you do not allow them access to them). It seems a very Snapey solution to me. From tubazrcool at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 13:13:00 2008 From: tubazrcool at yahoo.com (Heather Rivera) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 06:13:00 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Sword of Gryffindor Message-ID: <690756.24716.qm@web38506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182610 Mike: And if DD suspected Harry!Crux, he would also know that Basilisk venom would destroy a Horcrux. tubazrcool responds: Question (might have already been answered): If Basilisk venom destroys Horcruxes, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Horcrux inside Harry have been destroyed when the Basilisk fang penetrated his arm? He was awfully near death when Fawkes wept. Maybe DD had a suspicion about this and that's why he sent Fawkes and the Hat. That way if Harry was attacked, Fawkes would be able cure him and carry the persons in the CoS back up through the pipes (how else would they get back?). Ginny never went into the Chamber, the Basilisk just slithered up and down the pipes on its own. All this brings me to another point: If JKR knew that the Basilisk venom destroyed the Horcruxes, but allowed Harry to be wounded by a Basilisk via fang (=venom) and so destroy the one inside him, how far along had she thought about the Horcrux being the reason for Harry's connection and not just the scar? tubazrcool, wondering whether JKR had fully thought out this scenario From annemehr at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 17:49:38 2008 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (Annemehr) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:49:38 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: <690756.24716.qm@web38506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182611 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Heather Rivera wrote: > > Mike: > And if DD suspected Harry!Crux, he would also know that Basilisk venom would destroy a > Horcrux. > > tubazrcool responds: > > Question (might have already been answered): If Basilisk venom destroys Horcruxes, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Horcrux inside Harry have been destroyed when the Basilisk fang penetrated his arm? He was awfully near death when Fawkes wept. Maybe DD had a suspicion about this and that's why he sent Fawkes and the Hat. That way if Harry was attacked, Fawkes would be able cure him and carry the persons in the CoS back up through the pipes (how else would they get back?). Ginny never went into the Chamber, the Basilisk just slithered up and down the pipes on its own. All this brings me to another point: If JKR knew that the Basilisk venom destroyed the Horcruxes, but allowed Harry to be wounded by a Basilisk via fang (=venom) and so destroy the one inside him, how far along had she thought about the Horcrux being the reason for Harry's connection and not just the scar? > > tubazrcool, wondering whether JKR had fully thought out this scenario > Annemehr: I didn't get into this in my last post (where it may have fit into the discussion of what if Harry had died before getting to the crucial moment of sacrifice in DH) because it leads off into tangents that weren't germane to my point, but there are several possibilities. First of all, the Hx wasn't *inside* Harry, it *was* Harry. So the simple answer is that the venom didn't destroy the Hx because Fawkes's healing tears stopped it. I do note your point that Harry was "near death" at that moment, but it was clearly not meant to be the same type of Near Death Experience that he had in DH which actually did the job. A corollary to Harry himself being a true Hx would be that he could only be destroyed (read "killed") by something powerful enough to destroy a Hx. This might mean that Harry was never really in any danger except in the presence of the basilisk, Gryffindor's sword, and the fiendfyre. And after all, JKR carefully arranged for Nagini to die by the right sword (though Harry didn't tell Neville anything but "kill the snake"). However, if we are to believe the Kings Cross scene in DH, Harry could have chosen to "go on" at that point, meaning that LV's *AK* could have killed him then. This might lend credence to the viewpoint (which I believe Carol still espouses) that Harry was not technically a regular Hx, because no one ever did the spell to make him one. Instead, he is some other undefined repository for a soul-bit which acts as a Hx, but can be destroyed by any means of death. Or, one might argue that an AK *is* powerful enough to destroy a Hx, provided that the Hx is a living creature. There's no way of knowing. People's points of view on this will vary, I'm sure. I don't think the details really matter, because in any event, the basilisk venom would have done the job in CoS, had Fawkes not intervened. Annemehr From miles at martinbraeutigam.de Tue Apr 22 19:19:10 2008 From: miles at martinbraeutigam.de (Miles) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:19:10 +0200 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor References: <690756.24716.qm@web38506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002601c8a4ad$bfc5fc20$15b2a8c0@miles> No: HPFGUIDX 182612 > tubazrcool wrote: > > Question (might have already been answered): If Basilisk venom > destroys Horcruxes, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the Horcrux > inside Harry have been destroyed when the Basilisk fang penetrated > his arm? Miles: I think the answer is quite simple. The point in destructing Horcruxes is not to destroy the piece of soul within, but the object that keeps it from leaving earth. Those objects have a powerful magic protection that can only be overridden by certain magical powers, for example Basilisk venom. Harry is not a Horcrux in this sense, he functions as an Horcrux by accident. He could be killed by any means, magical or non-magical, that could kill any wizard. Basilisk venom is lethal for him, yes, but not because he contains a piece of Voldemort's soul. So, Dumbledore really wanted him to survive - but not because he contained a soul piece besides his own whole soul (something Dumbledore didn't know at that point), but because he wanted him to live. Miles From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 19:19:14 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:19:14 -0000 Subject: Random Questions....SS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182613 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tandra" wrote: > 2) Why is there no sort of ruckus when Hagrid does magic in the hut? > He gives Dudley a tail and makes a fire. Why was that not noticed by > the ministry? zanooda: Hagrid was allowed to do magic on this occasion. He says: "I'm - er - not supposed ter do magic, strictly speakin'. I was allowed to do a bit ter follow yeh an' get yer letters to yeh an' stuff - one o' the reasons I was so keen ter take on the job - " (p.59 Am.ed.). > Tandra wrote: > And in keeping with that question....why didn't Lilly > get in trouble when she came home and turned teacups into gerbils or > w/e it was Petunia said. zanooda: Into rats :-)! I really don't know about this. Maybe Lily only did it once, then she got a letter from the MoM (like Harry did in CoS), and never did it again? Or maybe the MoM was not much interested in underage troublemakers back then, with the war on their hands and all that :-). From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 19:47:39 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:47:39 -0000 Subject: Nature of Patronus - Snape's Messenger Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182614 --- "potioncat" wrote: > > > > Jerri wrote: > > I do wonder how Snape is supposed to have communicated with > > Grimauld Place ... > > > Potioncat: > It's not a popular explanation, but I think is one of those > moments JKR referred to in which she had painted herself in > a corner. I'm not sure if she noticed, though. > > In PoA DD tells Harry that the Order has more efficient means > of communication. And JKR confirmed (I think) that the method > was Messenger Patronuses. So I think it was pretty clear that > JKR was thinking that Snape had sent a Messenger Patronus to > 12 GP. Only, that doesn't work if it would reveal to everyone > that Snape loves/is-devoted-to Lily. > > ... bboyminn: Well, I think there is one thing the people are forgetting, and that is, very likely, many people have the same Patronus. I mean, there are only just so many realistically available animals in the world. Many people are bound to have a Dog Patronus, but just as every real dog is different, so to would every dog Patronus be different. The same with a Stag, I find it hard to believe that Harry is the only person in the world with a Stag Patronus. So, while people may have known Snape and Lily both had Doe patronus's I don't think that would have been anything other than a mild point of curiosity. Also, consider that amoung the Marauders, unless they were blind and stupid, they must have realized there was something between Snape and Lily. Exactly what that 'something' was I don't think was clear, but James and Sirius meet Lily and Snape together on the first train ride to Hogwarts. Snape maintained his friendship will Lily until it became clear that Snape was 'hanging with a rough crowd' and Lily couldn't accept that. Further, if Snape's Patronus CHANGED to a Doe, would that mean he was incapable of casting his original Patronus if he will it to be so? By that I mean, if he spontaneously casts a Patronus, it comes out a Doe, but if he consciously and willfully cast his Patronus, he can force it to be his original. So, two points, I don't think it's uncommon to find individuals with similar patronuses. It would be a curious event, but not an unheard of. Next, if a Partonus can change, does that imply some possibility that a person can willfully cast a Patronus in more than one form? Keep in mind that Snape was a brilliant wizard who was extremely knowledgeable in magic spells. Lastly, completely unrelated to the current discussion, but it was a pretty cool trick when McGonagall cast THREE simultaneous Patronuses in Deathly Hallows, and sent them to warn the three heads of house. How handy would this be if you were being attacked by a gang of Dementors? Is that something anyone can do with reasonable practice or is this unique to those who are personally brilliant, and extremely knowledgeable and experienced in magic? Just a few Patronus thoughts. Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 20:20:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 20:20:19 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182615 > Alla: > > Then based on what we can tell much about Harry's abilities if not > his grades? Carol responds: He says himself that he's not better than Ron at anything except flying (and, by extension, Quidditch). He does manage to turn an eyebrow yellow in a Transfiguration class in HBP, in contrast to Ron's accidentally giving himself a handlebar mustache, but how many times has Hermione succeeded in performing a spell (or making a potion pre-HBP) when ron and Harry don't succeed? Part of it is not paying attention, of course--they talk a lot in class--but so does Hermione, yet she, for example, silences her raven and gets a teacup to walk on legs when the boys fail in the same attempt. She also masters nonverbal spells long before they do. Now granted, Harry's inability to perform nonverbal spells in DADA in HBP has something to do with the mutual antagonism between him and Snape, but he can't do it in Charms or Transfiguration, either. So, what can we tell about Harry's abilities besides his grades? Well, there's that Patronus, the one spell he's better at than Hermione, but he had lots of help and the advantage of training on a Boggart!Dementor. And all the spells he learned for the TWT, he learned with Hermione's help and because his life quite literally depended on his learning them. (However, unlike Cedric and Fleur, who performed a bubblehead charm, and Viktor, who transfigured himself into half a shark, he didn't do any magic of his own to save himself from drowning; good thing that Crouch!Moody tricked Dobby into stealing the gillyweed. I concede, of course, that he was only fourteen at the time and could probably have performed the bubblehead charm at seventeen, though we never see him do it, but could he have turned himself into an animal, or even half of one, even at that age? there's no evidence that he could.) Harry says himself, and I think that both his modesty and his honesty are important, that he has no power to match Voldemort's; his wand acted on its own. The only special powers that he has were transferred to him inadvertently by Voldemort. He is matched against an enemy far more powerful than himself. (Compare his Stunning Spells, Expelliarmus, and Impedimenta to the spectacular magic that DD and Voldemort use against each other.) And, of course, he can't possess anyone or perform Occlumency (he gets the general idea finally in DH) or perform that horrible, invasive Legilimency that Voldemort uses or fly without a broom or control monsters or any of the horrible stuff that Voldemort uses, setting aside a couple of mediocre Imperius Curses and one successful Crucio. Snape defeats him in a duel simply by parrying all his curses, but Snape is protecting him; a real DE unconcerned with his survival, especially Bellatrix, would be another matter. Harry does have the power to block the Imperius Curse, which is helpful but odd. Wouldn't that require, as Snape says, similar powers of concentration to Occlumency? Why can he do one without the other? Is it a natural ability inherited from his parents or related somehow to the soulbit in his scar? We aren't told, but, either way, I don't see how a natural ability would be to his credit, any more than Hermione is responsible for her own good memory and powers of concentration. My intention is not to disparage Harry. Like David with Goliath, like Frodo with Sauron (or the Witch King, with whom he comes face to face), Harry is matched with a foe whose power is far greater than his. And yet Harry, considered by JKR to be pure of heart, defeats that enemy through a combination of determination, luck, love, and self-sacrifice. The whole point of the series, IMO, is that despite certain abilities developed or acquired through special circumstances, he's really just an ordinary Wizard kid who happened, through no action or desire of his own, to become the Chosen One. What would have happened to Harry without the help of what Snape calls his "more talented friends," chiefly Hermione and Dumbledore, but also Snape himself (a "freinemy"?) and even Barty Jr., acting temporarily in the guise of a friend? Alla: > And, um, I understand that you do not make much of Harry's natural > abilities for DADA, but this is absolutely the situation where I > believe what JKR said to be just an extra support to what is already > in the books. And I am pretty sure that she said that Harry's > instincts in DA are natural or something like that. > I do NOT believe that Harry is a genuis of course in anything but > DADA, yet in DADA I believe he is very close to one or at least meant > to be portrayed as such, Voldemort or not. Carol: Oh, well. I'm afraid that JKR's interpretation is sometimes at odds with the evidence, and canon on occasion contradicts itself. For example, Hermione talks Harry into giving them all DADA lessons, yet she's the one who helped him learn all those spells. And what are all those hexes and jinxes that the DA members use when they attack Draco and company on the Hogwarts Express? The only spells we know that they've been taught, aside from jinxes like Jelly-Legs and Petrigicus Totalus that they learned way back in first year, are standard DADA spells: Expelliarmus (already taught them by Snape in second year), Stupefy, Impedimenta, Reducto, and Protego--useful spells, certainly, but they're the same ones that Hermione made Harry learn in GoF. Why does Hermione, whose only problem with DADA is the Boggart she never faced in PoA (was Lupin trying not to embarrass her? Why not give her a special private lesson rather than allowing her to blow that part of his exam and later that portion of the OWL?) need DADA lessons? She knows perfectly well that Harry didn't defeat Voldemort in GoF, the Priori Incantatem did. She isn't going to learn to outfly a dragon and she's not going to need gillyweed. and if she doesn't know Stupefy and Impedimenta and the rest after studying the theory and watching Harry cast them, she's not the Hermione I know. Alla: > But I see no reason to downplay Harry's abilities either. He IS curious, he does pick the books sometimes. After all he is curious enough to open the books before he comes to Hogwarts. He is of course no Hermione, but he is IMO quite intelligent kid, who earned his Es, well my take would be because he indeed earned them. Carol responds: I'm not downplaying his abilities. He clearly has above-average abilities, though he doesn't seem to have a particularly retentive memory, and he applies his powers of concentration only when he needs or wants to learn a subject. He's lazy and he procrastinates; he uses the HBP's hints and takes (implicit) credit for them but he could never have come up with them on his own. He lets Hermione write many of his essays for him, which is why I wonder how he managed to learn the theoretical portions of his various subjects at all. Under ordinary circumstances, would he have been another James, sneaking around the castle under an Invisibility Cloak and making something along the lines of the Marauder's Map? I have no idea. I'm pretty sure he'd have been the Seeker on the Quidditch team, maybe even in his first year, but would he have learned DADA the way he did under special circumstances? Would he have turned to Transfiguration like James, who also had special incentive, a werewolf roommate? It's impossible to say. As for curiosity, that particular trait gets him into a lot of trouble, for example, entering Pensieves without permission. As for curiosity about his studies, I think he lost that after his classes became old hat. Certainly, he lost all curiosity about the history of magic thanks to Professor Binns. And both he and Ron think that reading your schoolbooks for entertainment is unnatural in anyone except Hermione--unless that schoolbook is the Prince's Potions book (paraphrased from the Levicorpus scene in HBP). Alla: > Does he care much for studies? Sure he cares for action first and foremost, but as I said the fact that he opens his books before he even starts his studies tells me that had he cared he could have done even more with his studies. Carol responds: He opens his books before he ever enters Hogwarts because he's just discovered that he's a Wizard and wants to learn as much as possible about his brave new world. But with each passing year, he becomes more accustomed to that world, and it loses its newness and excitement. He also becomes more preoccupied (as is perfectly natural and normal) with the things that interest him, such as Quidditch or whatever mystery he and his friends are solving or whatever problems he happens to be facing. And, of course, those problems all too often relate in some way to Voldemort, which takes us back to DADA. Carol, who prefers a Harry who is not a miniature Dumbledore capable of casting spells like those that DD and LV (or Snape and McGonagall) cast against each other and is instead forced to rely on luck, resourcefulness, courage, and friendship to defeat his nemesis From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 21:10:42 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:10:42 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182616 Potioncat: > It's not a popular explanation, but I think is one of those moments > JKR referred to in which she had painted herself in a corner. I'm not > sure if she noticed, though. > > In PoA DD tells Harry that the Order has more efficient means of > communication. And JKR confirmed (I think) that the method was > Messenger Patronuses. So I think it was pretty clear that JKR was > thinking that Snape had sent a Messenger Patronus to 12 GP. Only, > that doesn't work if it would reveal to everyone that Snape loves/is- > devoted-to Lily. > > I've seen several very good explanations of what Snape may have done > rather than send a Patronus (in fanfic form) but I think JKR > overlooked this important detail of a problem. > Carol responds: I'm sure you're right that JKR painted herself into a corner. But here's a thought. Perception depends quite a bit on preconceptions in the HP books. Harry, for example, besides misunderstanding Snape and Kreacher and of underestimating Luna and Neville, thinks of the Thestrals as "terrible" (until he has to rely on them as transportation to the MoM) and Grawp as brutal and untrainable (yet he turns out to be quite docile at DD's funeral and even capable of consoling Hagrid in a clumsy sort of way). There's the whole matter of Sirius Black "murdering" the Muggles and Pettigrew and "betraying" the Potters, of Snape "murdering" Dumbledore; even of Harry ostensibly being the Heir of Slytherin and setting a conjured snake on Justin Finch-Fletchley. And, of course, "Mad-Eye Moody" being a DE in disguise in GoF and the "little girls" being Crabbe and Goyle in HBP. It's not just that appearances can be deceiving; the viewer's or listener's preconceptions shape their perceptions and their awareness. Or how about the Muggles, who are oblivious to magic that happens right in front of them, even without Memory Charms and Muggle-repelling Charms? ("They don't see nuffink, do they?") *Dumbledore* knows the meaning of Snape's Patronus because he knows that Snape loved Lily before GoF, and Snape uses it to show him that his love has not diminished despite her having been dead for fifteen or so years. But would the others understand that the doe symbolized Lily? Harry certainly doesn't know the meaning of, say, Luna's hare Patronus and or Hermione's otter (I suspect that the otter, as a playful member of the weasel/mustelid family, represents Ron, but Harry certainly never draws that conclusion). It's possible that the Order members (or, I should say, Lupin and Black), while knowing that Harry's Stag Patronus represents James, don't know that Lily's Patronus was a doe and consequently don't recognize Snape's Patronus as representing Lily. Or they see it for the first time when he sends the messages to 12 GP (first to determine that Sirius is okay and let them know that Harry has had the vision and again to say that Harry hasn't returned from the forest and they need to get to the MoM). Under the circumstances, especially given their knowledge that Snape hated James and their probable supposition that he disliked Lily as well, based on the "Mudblood" taunt (memory being selective if it's not in a Pensieve) and, more important, given the importance of Snape's messages, they may have paid no attention to the form of his Patronus. (If they thought about it, they might wonder why his Patronus was female, but men have never thought it unmanly to be inspired by a Muse, so they might not question a female protective spirit, which could represent his mother for all they know, or might not represent a person at all. Of course, the brightness and purity and beauty and power of the Patronus might have been a clue to Snape's motives and loyalties if they'd been looking for one, but they weren't. (No one, for example, wonders why Kingsley's Patronus is a lynx when it announces that the Ministry has fallen and Scrimgeour is dead; it's the message that matters.) In fact, aside from Lupin's explanation (or was it DD's or Sirius Black's?--"Sirius" memory failure here) that the Stag Patronus represents James and Snape's snide remarks about Tonks's new Patronus, whose significance he clearly understands, I'm not sure that anyone talks about Patronuses as representing anyone or anything in particular. Anyway, I think everything depends on whether Lupin and Black (the only Order members likely to associate a doe Patronus with Lily) ever actually saw her Patronus, and, if so, whether they're likely to notice that Snape has a similar or identical Patronus. Either they never saw it or they've forgotten it (unlikely, given James) or they see the similarity as a coincidence and attach no significance to it, just as other characters, especially Harry, see and hear things and misinterpret them or attach no significance to them. that would be especially true if they only see his Patronus at times when the message is more important than the form of the Patronus, which would be most of the time. I do think, though, that during the summers or holidays, especially the summer between GoF and OoP and the OoP Christmas holiday, that Snape preferred to appear at 12 GP in person rather than communicate by Patronus. How he communicated with Dumbledore when DD was away from the school, as he obviously did or DD would not have known why he canceled the Occlumency lessons or that he had provided fake Veritaserum to Umbridge and Snape would not have known that DD would be coming to 12 GP within minutes of his own second message, I don't know. Is it a Flint (or painting herself into a corner, as with the Thestrals that Harry didn't see in GoF despite having watched Cedric die)? Or is there an official, reasonable, extracanonical explanation that may appear in the encyclopedia if JKR ever writes it (and if she recognizes the apparent inconsistency)? I really don't know. I've attempted to supply a reasonable explanation, but I'm not attached to it, and I rather think that it's one of those details JKR just didn't think about. After all, she thinks that Ron knew about (and apparently saw, given his description of it) the Hand of Glory that Draco wanted in CoS but his father refused to buy. Carol, who likes to imagine Snape walking into Umbridge's office, alerted by Pansy Parkinson, and seeing Draco with bats flying all around his face From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 22 21:24:01 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:24:01 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182617 --- > snip. > > > > > *Dumbledore* knows the meaning of Snape's Patronus because he knows > that Snape loved Lily before GoF, and Snape uses it to show him that > his love has not diminished despite her having been dead for fifteen > or so years snip . It's possible that the> Order members (or, I should say, Lupin and Black), while knowing that> Harry's Stag Patronus represents James, don't know that Lily's> Patronus was a doe and consequently don't recognize Snape's Patronus > as representing Lily. Or they see it for the first time when he sends> the messages to 12 GP (first to determine that Sirius is okay and let> them know that Harry has had the vision and again to say that Harry> hasn't returned from the forest and they need to get to the MoM).> Under the circumstances, especially given their knowledge that Snape> hated James and their probable supposition that he disliked Lily as> well, based on the "Mudblood" taunt (memory being selective if it's> not in a Pensieve) and, more important, given the importance of> Snape's messages, they may have paid no attention to the form of his> Patronus. >> > In fact, aside from Lupin's explanation (or was it DD's or Sirius > Black's?--"Sirius" memory failure here) that the Stag Patronus > represents James and Snape's snide remarks about Tonks's new Patronus, > whose significance he clearly understands, I'm not sure that anyone > talks about Patronuses as representing anyone or anything in particular. > > snip > Carol, The explanation that Carol gave above is great and very plausable. Sorry I snipped it so much. Snape ,it has been mentiond before had changed his patronus. Do we know when and what it was before.? Could he have used his old Patronus as the people he was sending it too would probably not know he had changed it.? To me the only way he could have communicated with the rest of the Order is by Patronus so the explanations above could fit very well Jayne Who wonders that if Lupin did realise , would he have said anything as he did not hate Snape as much as Sirius and James and IMHO was a very decent chap From lmkos at earthlink.net Tue Apr 22 21:35:24 2008 From: lmkos at earthlink.net (Lenore) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 15:35:24 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Cup, the Locket, the Sword, the Journey In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182618 Carol: >I just wanted to point out that the sword is not a Horcrux, [snip] I included the Sword because, as a symbol, it was powerfully connected with resolving the horcruxes, and therefore a critical element in the particular type of "path" which I wanted to touch on. Truly I was not so confused that I thought it was a horcrux. Neither were the Basilisk or Chamber of Secrets which I also mentioned, yet, symbolically they were closely tied in with the whole Diary horcrux event. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in setting out my original context. I got so focused on the transformational interface between the horcruxes and the Sword and so failed to mention that I wasn't including it as a horcrux. Lenore From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 22 21:41:16 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:41:16 -0000 Subject: Snape's Dementor lesson was: a dumb question/Choice of Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182619 --- snip> Carol, thinking that Seamus's "hairy" Patronus must be the boar and > Ernie's the fox, and wondering why either of them would have those > particular Patroni > I thought that the patronus ws a sub concious decision. Harry when he produced his first patronus didn't know his father's one was a Stag. I think he was thinking about his parents when he produced it so that's why it was a stag. Maybe Ernie and Seamus were thinking of thinks related to the two animals when they produced their first patronus. If Hermonie's one wa based on Ron then the explanation fits as she had thoughts about him from near the beginning of the books Jayne Just spouting thoughts as I am about to go to bed at 1o.45pm From darkmatter30 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 22:40:24 2008 From: darkmatter30 at yahoo.com (Richard) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:40:24 -0000 Subject: Nature of Patronus - Snape's Messenger Patronus In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182620 bboyminn wrote: > Well, I think there is one thing the people are forgetting, and > that is, very likely, many people have the same Patronus. I > mean, there are only just so many realistically available animals > in the world. Many people are bound to have a Dog Patronus, > but just as every real dog is different, so to would every > dog Patronus be different. > > The same with a Stag, I find it hard to believe that Harry is > the only person in the world with a Stag Patronus. So, while > people may have known Snape and Lily both had Doe patronus's > I don't think that would have been anything other than a mild > point of curiosity. Richard here: I think the point is good, but you also have to consider that there are only so many wizards in the Potter-verse, and not all of them are capable of producing corporial patronuses. The fact that Harry was able to produce one was of considerable interest to his DADA OWL examiner. It does not seem from canon that we should expect vast overlap, if this is the case, and I recall no evidence that the casting of them was taught at Hogwarts as a portion of normal DADA curriculum. A counter-argument is that Harry was able to teach the DA members how to produce corporial patronuses ... though we are lead to believe that he was an exceptional teacher, too. bboyminn wrote: > Also, consider that amoung the Marauders, unless they were > blind and stupid, they must have realized there was something > between Snape and Lily. Exactly what that 'something' was I > don't think was clear, but James and Sirius meet Lily and > Snape together on the first train ride to Hogwarts. Snape > maintained his friendship will Lily until it became clear > that Snape was 'hanging with a rough crowd' and Lily couldn't > accept that. Richard here: I take it as a given that they knew that there HAD BEEN something there, but did they know what Snape's patronus was PRIOR to Lily's death? And most male deer are antlerless at least some of the time, which means that, barring some close examination, others might assume a deer patronus of Snape's was male and interestingly antlerless (thus "asexual," "impotent," a "gelding" or otherwise "deformed" much as they see Snape). bboyminn wrote: > Further, if Snape's Patronus CHANGED to a Doe, would that mean > he was incapable of casting his original Patronus if he will > it to be so? By that I mean, if he spontaneously casts a > Patronus, it comes out a Doe, but if he consciously and > willfully cast his Patronus, he can force it to be his original. > So, two points, I don't think it's uncommon to find individuals > with similar patronuses. It would be a curious event, but not > an unheard of. Next, if a Partonus can change, does that > imply some possibility that a person can willfully cast a > Patronus in more than one form? Keep in mind that Snape was > a brilliant wizard who was extremely knowledgeable in magic > spells. > Richard here: It seems to me (and I do mean "seems," as there isn't a lot of canon on the topic) that one's patronus is a reflection of one's "heart" or character, and not subject to willful alteration. Snape's heart is lost to Lily, and he at least appears incapable of producing a patronus that reflects that fact. We are also told that one must concentrate on one's happy memories in order to produce a patronus at all, and it would seem an interference to think of anything else, such as alterations to one's patronus and its corporial manifestation, while trying to produce one. Sure, we have people of considerable power generating them apparently at will, but this is one of the areas where I think JKR lost a bit of the thread of her own story ... or left out detail in order to proceed with the tale. In the end we have the tale, and in that tale we are not told much that would be of interest to many of us ... such as whether Harry knew what his mother's patronus was. Barring JKR telling us, I don't see a resolution to this. From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Tue Apr 22 22:45:11 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:45:11 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182621 Do we know why Harry's scar is the lightning shape that it is? Why not a circle? A smudge? Etc? Thanks Barry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 22 23:56:11 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 23:56:11 -0000 Subject: The Sword of Gryffindor In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182622 Mike wrote: > > The Sorting Hat is a magical object and it seems a quite powerful one > too. According to canon, it has brains of the four founders in it, every year it composes a song that addresses the current climate of the WW and then proceeds to magically and unerringly sort all incoming Hogwarts students. We are not given the method, but this > seems to be a very powerfully magical ability. When I combine the > traits and abilities with which the Hat is imbued with the fact that > the Sword only appears magically from within it, I don't see why I > shouldn't believe that it was the Hat that caused the Sword to > appear. Not Dumbledore, not Godric, the Hat and it's own magic. Carol responds: Yes, the Hat can compose song lyrics and advise the students to unite, but it can't move or act (as opposed to think and speak) on its own. It sits on the shelf unless it is removed and, for example, carried into the Great Hall and placed on a stool or placed on someone's head. It does not get to the CoS on its own power; Fawkes carries it there. Nor does it get to Neville on its own power; Voldemort (of all people) summons it there. You say that the Sword can't come to a worthy Gryffindor on its own, but if that's the case, how did it get into the hat to come to Neville? It had been taken by the very unGryffindorean Goblin, Griphook (which is how this thread started). Do we see the hat appearing to rescue anyone else in need, or flying off the shelf of its own accord? No, we don't. So I think that DD either knew that the sword could, in certain circumstances, be drawn from the Sorting Hat by a worthy Gryffindor, or he magically concealed it there himself, to appear when Harry called for help. That it also appears to Neville seems to indicate that DD knew about but didn't place that enchantment on the hat; Godric Gryffindor seems to have done it. At any rate, I don't think we can ignore Rufus Scrimgeour's words, quoted upthread, that *the Sword of Gryffindor*, not the Sorting Hat, "may *present itself* to any worthy Gryffindor" (DH am. ed. 129). And those words come immediately after Hermione's remark that Harry pulled the sword out of the Sorting Hat. > Carol earlier: > > > > > > every evidence of DD's: Fawkes is his Phoenix and the Sorting Hat is kept in his office, as is the Sword of Gryffindor afterwards (I don't know about before because Harry never sees DD's office until after he kills the Basilisk). > > Mike: > Actually Harry does visit Dumbledore's office before he ventures into the CoS. He was sent to DD's office by McGonnigall after the Justin and NHN petrifications. > > I like Steve's postulation that the Sword of Gryffindor was lost to > time before it gets summoned to Harry in the Chamber. Had it been in > DD's office before this, I feel certain that Harry would have noticed it, after all it sits on the shelf next to the hat from CoS on > afterward. It's not something that would be easily overlooked. Carol responds: thanks for the correction. However, the sword could already have been conealed in the Sorting Hat, or DD could simply have arranged before he left to have Fawkes bring the Sorting Hat to Harry when Harry entered the Chamber because he knew that the sword would come out of it--and Harry was going to need that sword. Alternatively, we can have DD just making meaningless remarks to Harry (and Ron) as he leaves Hagrid's Hut: "You will find that I will only have *truly* left the school when none here are loyal to me" (IOW, Fawkes will come in my stead to help you if you express loyalty to me). "You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it" (IOW, DD will make sure that Harry has the help he needs if he asks for it--and the help that comes to him is the Sword of Gryffindor. (The Hat is brought by Fawkes in response to the expression of loyalty.) Either DD is egging the kids on and giving them false hope, or he has set up protections for them. And what better protection for a Gryffindor facing a Basilisk than a Phoenix and the Sword of Gryffindor, which will present itself to a worthy Gryffindor under conditions of need and valor? But Fawkes, strong though he is, can much more easily carry a hat than a sword, and, in any case, if the hat is enchanted so that only a Gryffindor can pull the sword out of it, the hat is useless to whatever form of Voldemort might be in the chamber along with the Basilisk. > > > > Carol: > > Diary!Tom talks about the protections that DD has sent his defender (a songbird and an old hat), and his explanation is not questioned or corrected afterwards, > > Mike: > Harry was the only one that heard those words and he has no motivation or reason to recall them to Dumbledore afterwards for possible correction. Conversely, Dumbledore unbidden thanks Harry for showing him great loyalty, as that's the only thing that would have summoned Fawkes. There is no place in this conversation for Harry to question Tom's words or for Dumbledore to correct them. And, Harry's loyalty to DD caling forth Fawkes was a form of DD providing Fawkes to Harry. Carol responds: As I've already noted in the quotation above, DD notes the importance of expressing loyalty to himself as a prerequisite of the protection. I didn't say that very clearly. I mean, an expression of loyalty to DD in a time of need or peril is the way to summon Fawkes. DD is, in essence, instructing Harry to call Fawkes, but given that Fudge and Lucius Malfoy are standing right there and that he doesn't want them to know that Harry and Ron are hiding under the Invisibility Cloak, he can't say so more openly. And since Fawkes belongs to DD and follows his orders (as we see in OoP), it stands to reason that DD has instructed him to come to Harry, bringing the Sorting Hat, when Harry expresses loyalty. Yes, loyalty is the only thing that summons Fawkes, and DD is telling Harry exactly that before he leaves. (But he hasn't *truly* left because Fawkes is still there and can carry out the protections that he has arranged.) If there were an alternative explanation to DD having arranged these protections, it would be provided. But DD's words, quoted above, plus Tom's words ("This is what Dumbledore sends his defender? A songbird and an old hat!" 316)) are all the explanation Harry or the reader receives. If we discount those explanations, we're discounting the only canon we have. What I want to know is why everyone seems to think that Dumbledore would leave the school without arranging for Harry's protection when his words in Hagrid's hut indicate not only that he knows Harry will attempt to enter the CoS but also that loyalty to himself and asking for help will provide him with the help he needs--exactly the sort of help that happens to be required under the circumstances. Mike: > Whether Fawkes, undoubtedly a very intelligent and magical animal, knows the Hat is also magically helpful, I can only speculate. It does seem that magical objects and beings in the Potterverse recognize other magical things. Carol: And Dumbledore knows the magical properties of objects and creatures, including Phoenixes, Basilisks, and the Sword of Gryffindor (and the Sorting Hat, if there's an enchantment on it allowing a Gryffindor to deraw the Sword out of it at need). So Dumbledore arranges for Fawkes, whose tears will heal Harry if he's bitten by the Basilisk, etc., etc., to bring the Sorting Hat from which "a worthy Gryffindor" can draw the Sword of Gryffindor and kill the Basilisk. Granted, Fawkes is intelligent, but he's a bird, and however capable he may be of compassion and of protecting Dumbledore's defenders from Basilisks (yes, he knows the deadly power of those eyes and seems immune to them, or he, too, would have been killed, albeit temporarily), but I don't think he's capable of reason. Dumbledore, however, is regarded as highly intelligent or as a genius by everyone, including himself. Surely, he can deduce, as I've said before, that the monster is a Basilisk, that Harry will attempt to fight it, and that he will need Fawkes to blind the Basilisk, provide the Sword of Gryffindor via the Hat, encourage Harry with his song, heal him with his tears if needed, and carry him out of the Chamber when it's all over? (Now I don't know whether he anticipated anything along the lines of diary!Tom, much less Ginny's body being brought into the chamber. He didn't know that the diary existed, much less that it was a Horcrux. But he knew about the Basilisk and he knew how to destroy it without Harry's being killed himself.) Alternatively, of course, he could leave Harry defenseless (which would make nonsense of his words in Hagrid's hut) and hope for the best. "Oh, it'll be all right. Fawkes and the Sorting Hat will figure something out." I don't think so. It would be irresponsible, if not outright despicable, for DD to leave Harry, whom he knows will attempt to enter the CoS and probably succeed, without defenses, simply relying the magic of the school, which has never, to my knowledge, protected anyone else, to save him. And rather than *assuming* that Harry will express loyalty to him, he mentions that he will not have truly have left the school as long as people there are loyal to him. That is Harry's cue to summon Fawkes. It stands to reason that DD would have informed Fawkes, too, and not relied on Fawkes's instincts, much less on some vague hope that Fawkes might bring Harry something or other that might bring Harry help if Harry asked for it. Doesn't it make much more sense for DD to *know* that the sword will come out of the hat and to *tell* Fawkes to bring it? Otherwise, instead of protections specifically set up by DD for a specific situation, we have serendipity and coincidence, with a songbird and an old hat doing all the thinking, and Dumbledore leaving Harry unprotected despite his words in Hagrid's hut. > > Carol: > > Either DD set up those protections or he knew that they would come into play. And he made sure that Harry heard his words > > before he left Hogwarts. > > Mike: > I'll grant that DD could have been the one to instruct Fawkes to bring the Hat to a Gryffindor in need. DD could very well have been aware of the Hat's additional abilities, if anyone was. Carol: Well, good. I'm glad you concede that much. :-) Geoff: But I still go along with Geoff's version, the Hat summoned the Sword, DD didn't magically hide the Sword in the Hat. Carol: What matters to me is that Dumbledore *knew* that the sword would come out of the hat and arranged for Fawkes to bring the hat to Harry. It doesn't matter how the sword got there. It could have been magically and undetectably hidden in the depths of the hat; it could have been summoned by the hat when it sensed Harry's and Neville's need; it could have been simply a "conduit," as someone said, through which the sword could come to "a worthy Gryffindor" (Scrimgeour's words) "under conditions of need and valor" (DD's words to Snape). I do think, though I'm only speculating, that Godric Gryffindor arranged for the Hat and the Sword to work together a thousand years earlier, and that the powers attributed to the Sword itself in DH are important. No such powers are attributed to the Sorting Hat by anyone, ever. It merely Sorts and composes songs and advises the school to unify in the face of outside enemies and talks to Harry about why it placed him in Slytherin. It has powers of Legilimency, the "brains" of the Founders, but I see no evidence that it can act on its own to summon help. It can't even leave the shelf on its own power. Nor does it talk unless it's on someone's head. (It wouldn't have called out to Fawkes as Fawkes left his perch to rescue Harry, "Wait! Take me!") It *could* have responded to Harry's call for help when Harry put it on, but that doesn't explain how *Neville*, who did not call for help, drew the sword from its flaming depths. Maybe the hat read Neville's thoughts and spoke to him when it was on his head, telling him to draw out the sword, even though the hat itself was on fire at the time? It didn't speak to Harry when he put it on and silently called for help in CoS. The sword merely fell out of it and bonked him on the head. The only thing that makes sense to me is an enchantment placed by Godric Gryffindor (I almost put GG, but that sounds like Grindelwald!) so that they work together under certain circumstances. And Dumbledore, the most intelligent and knowledgeable Gryffindor in the books, is much more likely than Fawkes to know about that enchantment, and to anticipate Harry's need for both songbird and sword. (DD probably expected Harry to draw out the sword as Neville does later, rather than having it fall on his head, but the point is, he must have known that it would have come out of the hat. Nothing else makes any sense to me.) Mike: > My reading hinges on one simple fact, DD was not available and for sure didn't have access to the Sword in DH. Yet the Hat summoned the Sword for another Gryffindor in need and without any reasonable way for DD to have caused it. The only other option is that the Sword itself is the actor. But then why would we need the Hat? And why would Snape need to bring the Sword to Harry via his doe Patronus? Carol responds: Dumbledore wasn't there in CoS, and he probably knew that he wouldn't be there, so he arranged his protections for Harry ahead of time in CoS, knowing that the Sword would come out of the hat. Since the hat can't come on its own, Fawkes had to bring it. As for DH, he did, of course, have to rely on Snape to deliver the sword, not being able to make the arrangements himself. Also, Harry was not at Hogwarts, so he couldn't use the Sorting Hat, and Fawkes was gone, so Fawkes could not have delivered the Hat in any case. Yes, the Hat and the Sword together work independently of Dumbledore in DH, indicating that the enchantment was placed by Gryffindor, not by DD, and, as Scrimgeour says, it does not belong to any one Gryffindor--not DD, not Harry, and not Neville after Scrimgeour's death, much less to Griphook). I agree that the Sword itself is the actor, but it requires either the hat as a "conduit" or someone like Snape to make it available under the necessary conditions (note that Harry alone can't retrieve it because the need is not obvious and the only "valor" involved is jumping in a frozen pool. It requires Ron bravely jumping into that same pool to save Harry and the need to destroy the Horcrux that is choking Harry before it can be retrieved. How much of that Snape knew [certainly not that the Horcrux was choking Harry or that the Sword would be used to destroy it], I don't know, but I do think that he saw Ron and incorporated him into his plan, making sure that he saw Harry following the Patronus.) Anyway, neither the Hat nor the Sword can come on its own. The Hat does not come down from the shelf or the sword from its case without some human intervention that activates the magic. CoS: DD arranges for Fawkes to bring the Sorting Hat to Harry, who receives the sword after he puts on the hat and asks for help. DH: Portrait!DD arranges for Snape to deliver the Sword to Harry, who can only retrieve it under conditions of "need and valor." Snape arranges for Harry to follow the doe Patronus to the frozen pool in which he has placed the sword (and, IMO, for Ron to follow). What would have happened without Ron, I don't know. Snape might have had to reveal his presence and rescue Harry himself, with the Sword going to a worthy Slytherin! DH again: Griphook had stolen the Sword of Gryffindor, which magically left him and somehow appeared in the Sorting Hat when Neville needed it. Were that hat and the sword working together? Did the Hat summon the Sword or is the Sword enchanted to appear inside the hat under certain circumstances? And what made Voldemort summon the Hat at just that moment? How very convenient for the "worthy Gryffindor" who needed the Sword to kill Nagini! > > > > Geoff: > > > I reiterate what I suggested previously. What made him think that Harry would go looking for the Chamber - or if he did that he would succeed where others hadn't over the centuries? > > > > Carol responds: > > > > And once he learns that Harry, like Voldemort is a Parselmouth and can therefore find and open the Chamber, as DD himself cannot, and Harry has been falsely accused of being the Heir of Slytherin and opening the CoS, and especially after Hermione is Petrified, it's almost a foregone conclusion that he (and Ron) will attempt it. > > Mike: > I agree with Carol here. Not only was Dumbledore confident that Harry would go searching for the entrance to the CoS, Manipulative!DD probably very much wants Harry to get in there. He is providing clues and hints aplenty to aid Harry in his quest should he succeed in finding and entering the Chamber. And what were the chances that DD forgot that Harry was in the hospital wing when he and McG carry the petrified Colin in? > Carol: Exactly. Although DD didn't need to be terribly manipulative. Harry had plenty of incentive (Hermione's Petrification, being accused of being the Heir of Slytherin himself). I forgot to mention that Hagrid also expects Harry and Ron to investigate the mystery ("Follow the spiders!") Carol responds: > > > > and if he doesn't expect Harry, as a Parselmouth, to succeed where he has failed. > > Mike: > A quick point here. I'm not sure that DD can't speak Parseltongue. He sure seems to understand it when the Gaunts speak it. And since Ron > was able to mimic Harry to get the CoS open, I find it hard to > conceive of it thwarting Dumbledore. Carol respnds: I realize that canon can be interpreted either way, but we never see or hear Dumbledore speaking Parseltongue. He recognizes it when it's spoken, and he asks Harry whether he understands what Morfin is saying (as Bob Ogden clearly does not), alerting Harry to the fact that Morfin is speaking Parseltongue, but how much of the dialogue DD understands and how much he guesses is not clear. His comments afterwards give no indication that he understood what Morfin was saying, and Merope's body language and paleness (she understands Parseltongue but doesn't actually speak it in the scene) are sufficient indication of her feelings about Tom Sr. and her fear of her father knowing about it. Surely, if Dumbledore could speak Parseltongue, he would have found and opened the Chamber of Secrets himself instead of hunting fruitlessly for it, as Professor Binns informs us that he has done, long before Harry came to the school. He knew that Tom Riddle had opened it when Riddle himself was just a boy and Harry's *parents* would not be born for another seventeen years. If he really wanted *Harry* to open it fifty years later but could have done so himself, wouldn't he have gone with Harry rather than putting such a burden on a twelve-year-old? He can speak *Mermish* and, presumably, Gobbledygook and who knows how many other languages, but those languages seem to be learnable, whereas Parseltongue is usually a hereditary trait, passed from Slytherin to Tom Riddle via the Gaunts and to Harry (who doesn't have to learn it; he just understands and speaks it) via the soul bit. Ron, a natural mimic, doesn't really learn Parseltongue. He just hears Harry say "Open" (having already heard him say the same word back in CoS), and, after a few tries, succeeds in imitating that one word. That's very different from Harry's ability to speak to snakes even before he knew he was a Wizard, or from Tom Riddle, who at age eleven confesses to Dumbledore that snakes "find him" and that he can talk to them. Mike: Therefore, I don't think DD even tried to get into the CoS, both for purpose of JKR's plot and because he wouldn't have a reason to tempt fate and do battle with a Basilisk when he was sure that it would never be called forth again. Carol responds: Of course, JKR's plot requires Harry to be the one to enter the Chamber and fight the Basilisk. But Moaning Myrtle was killed and the school was in danger of being closed. Dumbledore knew quite well who had opened the Chamber (and, IMO, what was in there). And the students were again in danger in CoS. Do you really think that DD would allow the school to close, or worse, risk the death of another student, if he could stop the problem himself by entering the Chamber and killing the Basilisk? Fortunately, we don't have to think so badly of Dumbledore. He *did* try--and fail--to find the Chamber of Secrets, as Professor Binns informs the Gryffindors: "'If a long succession of headmasters and headmistresses haven't found the thing--' "'But Professor,' piped up Parvati Patil, 'you'd probably have to use Dark magic to open it--' "'Just because a wizard *doesn't* use Dark magic doesn't mean he can't, Miss Pennyfeather,' snapped Professor Binns. 'I repeat, if the likes of Dumbledore--' "'But maybe you've got to be related to Slytherin, so Dumbledore couldn't--' began Dean Thomas, but Professor Binns had had enough. "'That will do!' he said sharply. "It is a myth! ....'" (Cos Am. ed. 152). Carol again: So DD, like all those others, has tried and failed, which suggests that he can't speak Parseltongue. And since Harry's survival is crucial to DD's plan, he can't just send Harry to the Basilisk and hope that he kills him. Better to do it himself if he could. And if he can't, better make sure that Harry has the weapons and protection that he needs. > Mike: > I'm of two minds on this question. (I know, blimey what a waste of parchment. ) On the one hand, I can't conceive of DD not sussing out the monster being a Basilisk. OTOH, would DD chance his champion being killed this early on in the battle against Voldemort? > >Carol: I agree that DD had to know that the monster was a Basilisk *and* that he didn't want Harry dead. Which is why he supplied Harry with a Phoenix and the Sword of Gryffindor. And if he could have killed the Basilisk himself, he would have done so, preserving his champion (whom he was already starting to love) for other battles. Carol, wondering whether Fawkes will appear to her as a reward for defending Dumbledore and hoping it's not an old hat, with or without a sword From willsonkmom at msn.com Wed Apr 23 01:13:24 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:13:24 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182623 Jayne: > The explanation that Carol gave above is great and very plausable. > Sorry I snipped it so much. Potioncat: Yes it is. The fact that others wouldn't instantly recognise its significance hadn't occured to me, and might work. I'm still mulling it over. > Jayne: > Snape ,it has been mentiond before had changed his patronus. Do we > know when and what it was before.? Potioncat: Erm. I don't think there's any canon for that. We have been told by JKR in an interview that the Expecto Patronum spell is not taught at Hogwarts. Of course, maybe it was in the Marauders' days. But, the point is, Snape's Patronus may have always been a doe. In fact, that's what I think. Some of us theorized that his Patronus might change to something that would show his loyalty after killing DD. But that doesn't seem to be what happened. We never knew what it was anyway. What had been expected was that he would send a message to the Order or to Harry and no one would know it was from him. Well, actually, that did happen. Just not quite the way we expected. From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 01:32:29 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 01:32:29 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182624 > Carol responds: > I do think, though, that during the summers or holidays, especially > the summer between GoF and OoP and the OoP Christmas holiday, that > Snape preferred to appear at 12 GP in person rather than communicate > by Patronus. How he communicated with Dumbledore when DD was away from > the school, as he obviously did or DD would not have known why he > canceled the Occlumency lessons or that he had provided fake > Veritaserum to Umbridge and Snape would not have known that DD would > be coming to 12 GP within minutes of his own second message, I don't know. zgirnius: I find all of your questions above are answered simply by the same answer - Snape Apparated and contacted Albus (after Albus's departure from the school), as well as Sirius and the Order (the night of the DoM adventure) in person, just as you suppose he preferred to do in the summer. Why should he do anything different during the school year? As soon as he leaves the school grounds, he can be in London, or anywhere else in Great Britain, instantly. He could know Albus was coming, because he met the Order members in person, and they mentioned to him that Albus was expected. Needing to unexpectedly leave the grounds to Apparate is an eventuality for which he must have been prepared, anyway. He could hardly have sent his Patronus in response to a summons by Lord Voldemort. > Carol: > Carol, who likes to imagine Snape walking into Umbridge's office, > alerted by Pansy Parkinson, and seeing Draco with bats flying all > around his face zgirnius, amused to note that this is exactly how it plays out in her fanfic. From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Wed Apr 23 02:09:00 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:09:00 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks References: <1208891960.4521.25908.m50@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001b01c8a4e7$280f6f80$d8ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182625 All the discussions of Harry's academic abilities (or lack thereof) and how the students who attended Hogwarts learned the basics like reading and maths (which I recall JKR said that some went to muggle elementary type schools and others were home schooled), has reminded me of a question in my mind about one of the classes that Harry and apparently all Hogwart's students took every year for the first 5 years of school. And that is Astronomy. And my question is: Why do they take Astronomy, for FIVE years, when there is so much other stuff that they don't have time to study? I don't recall every seeing anyone USE astronomy. In divination there is some mention of plant and star movements, and they having learned things in astronomy. But not everyone takes divination, and the astronomy related parts of divination are small, except perhaps when taught by a certain replacement teacher! So, can anyone else find anyplace in the books where astronomy is used? That is, any reason for this class except to provide an astronomy tower, from which Norbert can depart, HRH and friends can see Hagrid's confrontation with Umbridge's staff, followed by McGonagall's response, and finally for Dumbledore to fall off? And, why is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a required text for first year students at Hogwarts, when they don't take Care of Magical Creatures classes until third year? And isn't it supposed to be an optional class, even then? Every other book on their list is directly related to a class. And if the Weasley family is hard up for money, do they really need a complete set of Lockhart books for each of their five children at Hogwarts that year? Can't they share at all? (By the way, I do own a copy of FB&WTFT and enjoy it a lot, but I do wonder.) Jerri From puduhepa98 at aol.com Wed Apr 23 03:40:35 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 03:40:35 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182626 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Mike" wrote: > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > > Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore > > > > ... > > > > QUESTIONS: > > > > .... > > > > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said > > Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected > > Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore > > reject his own interpretation? > > > > bboyminn: > > I'm going to just address this one issue. The problem with > the quoted statement is that there are two more words to > it, though those two words may only be implied. > > When Dumbledore and Grindelwald were first discussing 'the > greater good', they were feeling that the wizard world was > a little put upon and downtrodden. Wizards were forced into > hiding by the cruelty of muggles and they felt that was unfair. > So, when, at that time they say 'for the greater good', what > they mean is for the greater good /of wizards/. They are > willing to oppress and subjugate an entire race of millions of > people for the greater good of a few thousand people, meaning > of course, the wizard world. > > Later in life, Dumbledore still believes in the greater good, > but he now believed in the greater good /of all/. > > Steve/bboyminn > >Nikkalmati >This phrase, which occurs several times in the books in different >contexts, has me puzzled. What does the author (JKR of course) >intend? If I were just reaading the books, I would think that she >intended us to see the irony in DD's use of the phrase as a guide to >right behavior. The greater good according to whom? Even if DD is >using this maxim as his guide, he ends up doing a number of dodgy >things, misusing his power, and mistreating individuals - all for >what he sees as the greater good. Just from the books, I would say >JKR intends for the reader to see that the greater good is a very >poor guide to behavior. OTOH when I read the interviews, I get the >feeling that JKR very much believes in measuring actions by this >standard. What do you think? Does JKR mean the greater good to be a >reliable moral guide or does whe want the reader to see it as a form >of self-deception? Nikkalmati From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 04:47:12 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 04:47:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182627 Mike: I'm coining a new acronym, because I'm going to use it alot in this post. YBSW = yeah, but so what? > Carol responds: > > > Well, there's that Patronus, the one spell he's better at than > Hermione, but he had lots of help and the advantage of training > on a Boggart!Dementor. Mike: YBSW? Lupin told us that many qualified wizards can't cast a Patronus. Here's Harry casting an effective and probably powerful one at age 13. He repelled hundreds of Dementors with it in PoA. To me it's akin to a French resistance fighter being trapped on the coast and his only way to save his life is to swim the English Channel. A very large motivation, saving one's life, causes him to attempt this feat. But still, *he swam the English Channel*, that's not something done every day. > Carol responds: > And all the spells he learned for the TWT, he learned with > Hermione's help and because his life quite literally > depended on his learning them. Mike: YBSW? Who doesn't have a teacher? Even Dumbledore attended Hogwarts and had teachers. Harry's learning curve, of necessity, has been accelerated. But he still had to learn the spells and become proficient at them in a very short time. And how much "teaching" does Hermione do, besides finding the spells in a spell book then stand back and say stuff like, "You have to concentrate."? > Carol: > but could he have turned himself into an animal, or even half of > one, even at that age? there's no evidence that he could. Mike: For what purpose would Harry want to learn this magic? It was fun and games for his dad to become an Animagus. Maybe later in life, Harry would choose to master this transformation, but here and now it is of no value to him. > Carol: > Harry says himself, and I think that both his modesty and his > honesty are important, that he has no power to match Voldemort's; > his wand acted on its own. Mike: Well, seeing as only Dumbledore was shown to be a match for Voldemort, I don't see how Harry not measuring up to LV should be a black mark on his pedigree. As Pippin pointed out, Harry not only threw off Crouch!Moody's Imperious, he also threw off Voldemort's. And Harry was at an extreme disadvantage there in the graveyard, having already been injured by the Acromantula. Harry got lucky in having LV's brother wand, but it wasn't luck that forced the golden beads back into LV's wand instead of his own. Was this magical ability, force of will, affinity with the Phoenix core? Whichever matters not to me, in this test Harry bested Voldemort. > Carol: > The only special powers that he has were transferred to him > inadvertently by Voldemort. He is matched against an enemy far > more powerful than himself. Mike: YBSW? As Dumbledore proved himself, the key to defeating Voldemort wasn't to out-duel him. > Carol: > > Harry does have the power to block the Imperius Curse, > We aren't told, but, either way, I don't see how a natural > ability would be to his credit, any more than Hermione is > responsible for her own good memory and powers of concentration. Mike: This is a confusing statement. Why wouldn't Harry's, Hermione's, or anyone's natural abilities be to their credit? In GoF, Sirius brought up a different measuring stick (a measuring stick that we never see, btw) for guaging a wizard's magical ability; "powerfully magical". Barty Crouch was said to be so, yet he fell prey to fetal!Voldemort's Imperius. Harry repelled fully reconstituted Voldemort's Imperius. Why is this "powerfully magical" demonstration not to Harry's credit? After all, isn't Tom Riddle powerfully magical himself and isn't that why he is able to perform those fantastic spells? (Besides being bright enough to learn them and being a world-wise traveller that discovers them.) > Carol: > My intention is not to disparage Harry. > he's really just an ordinary Wizard kid who happened, through no > action or desire of his own, to become the Chosen One. What would > have happened to Harry without the help of what Snape calls > his "more talented friends," chiefly Hermione and Dumbledore, but > also Snape himself (a "frienemy"?) and even Barty Jr., acting > temporarily in the guise of a friend? Mike: YBSW? Besides Voldemort, who doesn't have friends that help them in this series? And Voldemort has better than friends, he has subservient DEs. Why should Harry's friendships be discounted as an unfair advantage? Or, put another way, why shouldn't Harry get credit for making these "more talented" friends rather than being looked upon as a weaker person for having them? > Carol: > > > For example, Hermione talks Harry into giving them all DADA > lessons, yet she's the one who helped him learn all those spells. Mike: YBSW? Hermione may have helped Harry learn them, but there was no indication that she mastered them herself, nor that she was as good at them as Harry was. If there is more to magic than pointing a wand and repeating an incantation, Harry must have figured out how to tap into that something extra. That's what he teaches, imo. > Carol: > Why does Hermione,... need DADA lessons? She knows perfectly well > that Harry didn't defeat Voldemort in GoF, the Priori Incantatem > did. Mike: I beg to differ. First, Hermione needs/wants to master DADA spells in the way that Harry has. That's why she needs lessons. Second, the Priori Incantatum neutralized Voldemort's AK, but Harry's force of will is what made him come out on top in the battle to decide which wand would be forced to regurgitate its spells. That is what decides who defeated whom in this encounter and it was Harry's doing and Harry's victory, imo. > Carol responds: > He lets Hermione write many of his essays for him, which > is why I wonder how he managed to learn the theoretical portions > of his various subjects at all. Mike: I don't think Hermione wrote *one* of Harry's essays. She certainly proofread them and corrected his mistakes, but her own moral compass won't allow her to flat out write them. And Harry demonstrated that he must have grasped at least some of the theoretical qualities of magic in order to get the grades and perform the spells that he does. QED > Carol: > Under ordinary circumstances, .... but would he have learned DADA > the way he did under special circumstances? Mike: Paraphrasing here, but didn't Dumbledore say that he never dreamed he would have such a person of Harry's quality? Dumbledore's fan-like utterance bespeaks of Harry's talents and abilities, not because he was the "chosen one" but in spite of that. IOW, I think Harry was naturally inclined towards DADA and naturally talented separate from whatever talents he got from LV's soul piece. YMMV > Carol responds: > But with each passing year, he becomes more accustomed to that > world, and it loses its newness and excitement. He also becomes > more preoccupied (as is perfectly natural and normal) with the > things that interest him, such as Quidditch or whatever mystery > he and his friends are solving or whatever problems he happens > to be facing. And, of course, those problems all too often relate > in some way to Voldemort, which takes us back to DADA. Mike: As you say, perfectly natural, and part of what keeps Harry as the everykid he was introduced as. > Carol, who prefers a Harry who is not a miniature Dumbledore > capable of casting spells like those that DD and LV (or Snape > and McGonagall) cast against each other and is instead forced > to rely on luck, resourcefulness, courage, and friendship to > defeat his nemesis Mike, agreeing with Carol's general assessment but wanting to claim a smidgen more talent for Harry than she's willing to allow From bboyminn at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 08:16:15 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 08:16:15 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182628 --- "nikkalmati" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > --- "Mike" wrote: > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > > > Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore > > > > > > ... > > > > > > QUESTIONS: > > > > > > .... > > > > > > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said > > > Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected > > > Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore > > > reject his own interpretation? > > > > > > > bboyminn: > > > > I'm going to just address this one issue. The problem with > > the quoted statement is that there are two more words to > > it, though those two words may only be implied. > > > > ... > > So, when, at that time they say 'for the greater good', what > > they mean is for the greater good /of wizards/. They are > > willing to oppress and subjugate an entire race of millions of > > people for the greater good of a few thousand people, meaning > > of course, the wizard world. > > > > Later in life, Dumbledore still believes in the greater good, > > but he now believed in the greater good /of all/. > > > Steve/bboyminn > > > > >Nikkalmati > > This phrase, which occurs several times in the books in different > contexts, has me puzzled. What does the author (JKR of course) > intend? If I were just reading the books, I would think that she > intended us to see the irony in DD's use of the phrase as a guide > to right behavior. The greater good according to whom? ... > > Nikkalmati > bboyminn: Well, this is the very point I am making, to simply say 'The Greater Good' without establishing a context is to say nothing. I think JKR believes in the greater good of ALL, not just the greater good of a priviledged few. Far to often in modern society, it is the greater good of a select few that is considered over the greater good of the greatest number of people. As an extension of 'the greater good', there is a secondary aspect of human endeavor that has been the subject of many science fiction stories including "Ender's Game" and various 'Star Trek' episodes, and is also reflected in Harry Potter. On some occasions human will sacrifices The Few to save The Many, but on other occasion, quite illogically, humans will sacrifice The Many to save The Few. This was especially impressed on me when Aberforth and Harry argue in 'Deathly Hallows' just before Harry and friends enter Hogwarts castle. Harry in essence says that some causes are so great and so true, and the need so real that indeed the few must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good, or if you will the greater good, of the many. Harry knows that he could, as Aberforth suggests, save himself, and let the wizard world/adults fight their own wars. But Harry knows it is within his power and within his will to stop the war and by extension, stop Voldemort. Selfless as always, Harry is willing to make that personal sacrifice in the hope that his sacrifice will save the wizard world and the muggles. Harry is willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good of the wizarding world and the muggles and muggle-borns, in a sense, willing to self-sacrifice for the greater good of all. So, yes, JKR supports the greater good, but only within a fair and reasonable context. The majority can't have its way to the detriment of minorities. The wealthy and powerful can not have their own way and act in their best interests to the detriment of those socially and economically below them. Any greater good must be, to the extent possible, for the greater good of all. Just a thought. Steve/bboyminn From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 15:07:33 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:07:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182629 Carol, who prefers a Harry who is not a miniature Dumbledore > capable of casting spells like those that DD and LV (or Snape > and McGonagall) cast against each other and is instead forced > to rely on luck, resourcefulness, courage, and friendship to > defeat his nemesis Mike, agreeing with Carol's general assessment but wanting to claim a smidgen more talent for Harry than she's willing to allow Alla: Mike, snipped your whole post just to say a big ME TOO, but I do want to elaborate just a little bit on it and will interject some snippets from Carol too. Of course it is one of the theme of the series that ordinary kid finds himself in the extraordinary circumstances and of course Harry is not a miniature Dumbledore, but I do not believe that it is a theme of the series that ordinary kid with below average abilities finds himself in the extraordinary circumstances. Let me give you personal example. As you know I went to law school. My grades in the law school, especially in the first year were BAD ? Bs and Cs, etc. There were plenty of students who were getting As, giving amazing arguments, etc, etc. So I was an average student. But was I really a person of average abilities? I mean, sorry I know it sounds cocky and arrogant, but I really does believe that this example works here. I went to law school when I still struggled with my English, and I did it, I did not get any Ds, and even managed to earn some As in my second and third year ( except legal writing that is LOL). I managed to get a law degree in my second language ( and so are quite a few other people of course), so while there were plenty of people much better than me, I do not think that if you judge my performance considering all my circumstances, that would mean that I am all that average. I will probably never achieve the level of oral argument and writing that many people have, but not everybody can do what I did either. If one is average in comparison with others, that does not necessarily mean IMO that one is average on his own merits. So, eh, going back to Harry. Of course he is no genius and of course there are people who are more talented than him, but he was getting Es in most of his OWL subjects, that tells me that he is quite an intelligent kid or teen. And, I never thought that Ron was stupid either, so the fact that Harry says that he is no better than Ron really does not tell me much. And on the subject of Hermione writing their essays, I agree with Mike, but I also want to add that we do see Harry writing his essays. I can hunt for more but the one that comes right away is the beginning of PoA. And he remembered the potion that he did not do, didn't he? Hermione brewed Polyjuice and was just telling them what is included there and Harry still REMEMBERED it three years later, theory part I mean. That tells me that he has quite a good memory, personally. Carol: For example, Hermione talks Harry into giving them all DADA lessons, yet she's the one who helped him learn all those spells. Alla: Yes but so what indeed. After all Hermione sees that Harry is the one who seems to have much more teaching abilities towards the group than her. Carol: < HUUUGE SNIP> She knows perfectly well that Harry didn't defeat Voldemort in GoF, the Priori Incantatem did. Alla: Oh ? And would that had even gotten to the moment where priori incantatem took place but for Harry deciding to stand up and fight? I am afraid that I disagree that Harry didn't defeat Voldemort in GoF, I believe his behavior prior to this deserves credit as defeating Voldemort. Mike: IOW, I think Harry was naturally inclined towards DADA and naturally talented separate from whatever talents he got from LV's soul piece. Alla: Yes, agreed. JMO, Alla From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 18:55:37 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:55:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus (was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182632 Jayne: > > The explanation that Carol gave above is great and very plausable. > > Sorry I snipped it so much. > > Potioncat: > Yes it is. The fact that others wouldn't instantly recognise its significance hadn't occured to me, and might work. I'm still mulling it over. Carol responds: Thanks, both of you. > > > Jayne: > > Snape ,it has been mentiond before had changed his patronus. Do we know when and what it was before.? > > Potioncat: > Erm. I don't think there's any canon for that. We have been told by JKR in an interview that the Expecto Patronum spell is not taught at Hogwarts. Of course, maybe it was in the Marauders' days. But, the point is, Snape's Patronus may have always been a doe. In fact, that's what I think. Carol responds: And yet JKR goes to some effort, via Tonks, to show that a Patronus can change. Snape sees and correctly interprets Tonks's changed Patronus (we don't know what it was before because it isn't relevant), and Harry, trying to figure out what's wrong with Tonks and remembering Snape's words, asks Lupin, "the man who knew all about Patronuses," why a Patronus would change. Lupin, of course, knows perfectly well why *Tonks's* Patronus has changed and what it would change into, but doesn't want to tell that to Harry (who apparently thinks it might be Sirius's Animagus form but doesn't get to test his theory because they're interrupted by Percy and Scrimgeour. JKR does that a lot . . . .). Instead, Lupin is silent for a moment, taking his time to swallow his food (and formulate a response that answers the question without giving away anything personal), "Sometimes . . . a great shock . . . an emotional upheaval . . . ." (HBP Am. ed. 340). While this response seems, in context, to explain the change in Tonks's Patronus (which is really the result of unrequited love or Lupin's unwillingness to allow himself to love and has nothing to do with blaming herself for Sirius's death, as Hermione has theorized with regard to Tonks's loss of her Metamorphmagus abilities), it really fits better with what happened to young Severus Snape. His own involvement in the eavesdropping, followed by Lily's death, which he had tried and failed to prevent and for which he still blamed himself, would certainly qualify as "a great shock" and "an emotional upheaval." IMO, JKR is preparing the reader, through Tonks, for Snape's changed Patronus. And yet, I agree with Potioncat that logically, Snape's Patronus should always have been Lily in some form. Maybe it was originally something else that represented her (a uniconr, which symbolizes purity?) but became Lily's own Patronus on her death. Yes, the Patronus Charm is not taught at Hogwarts, and yes, Snape seems to have some other method (I think it's Occlumency, as I said recently in a post that I can't find, the site's search engine having failed me) for protecting himself against Dementors (probably the same method that Fudge uses when he communicates with them), but I think that Severus Snape, being both gifted and powerful, would have taught himself to cast a Patronus long before Dumbledore taught the Order how to use them to communicate. In short, I think he had a Lily-related Patronus that reflected his love for her that changed to a doe, Lily's own Patronus, after Godric's Hollow. And yet, there's that remark to Dumbledore after he casts the doe Patronus to show his love for Lily when DD remarks, "After all this time?" and Snape responds, "Always." But I think that DD simply meant "You still love Lily?" and Snape means that he'll always love her. It's quite possible that Dumbledore has seen that Patronus before and has never realized its significance. And now, his eyes full of tears, he does. As for two people having the same Patronus, I think that Patronuses are like wands, which can be made of the same wood and have the same kind of core and yet still be different, just as each unicorn and dragon (and Phoenix, if there's more than one at a time) is different. Each animagus form is also undoubtedly different, as well. Another person with a dog Animagus probably wouldn't resemble Sirius Black's big black shaggy dog, and another person's dog Patronus probably wouldn't resemble Ron's Jack Russell terrier. BTW, we do see two people with the same animal as a Patronus: Minerva McGonagall, the cat Animagus, and Dolores Umbridge, who has all those horrible kitten plates decorating her office, both have a cat as their Patronus. And, given the association in folklore between cats and witches, I would bet that a lot of Witches (and perhaps some Wizards as well) have cat Patronuses. If Figgy or Filch could cast a Patronus, which, of course, they can't, being Squibs, I'm pretty sure that theirs would be a cat as well. (Filch's would no doubt be Mrs. Norris and Mrs. Figg's would perhaps resemble Mr. Tibbles.) Carol, still just speculating based on the little canon available on the topic From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 19:51:55 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:51:55 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182633 Carol earlier: > > I do think, though, that during the summers or holidays, especially the summer between GoF and OoP and the OoP Christmas holiday, that Snape preferred to appear at 12 GP in person rather than communicate by Patronus. How he communicated with Dumbledore when DD was away from the school, as he obviously did or DD would not have known why he canceled the Occlumency lessons or that he had provided fake Veritaserum to Umbridge and Snape would not have known that DD would be coming to 12 GP within minutes of his own second message, I don't know. > > zgirnius: > I find all of your questions above are answered simply by the same answer - Snape Apparated and contacted Albus (after Albus's departure from the school), as well as Sirius and the Order (the night of the DoM adventure) in person, just as you suppose he preferred to do in the summer. Why should he do anything different during the school year? > > As soon as he leaves the school grounds, he can be in London, or anywhere else in Great Britain, instantly. He could know Albus was coming, because he met the Order members in person, and they mentioned to him that Albus was expected. Carol responds: Er, no. Snape informs *them* that Dumbledore will be coming to Order quarters shortly and tells Sirius to wait: DD tells Harry, "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had happened, for I was due there at any moment" (830). So Snape has somehow been communicating with Dumbledore and knows that DD will be showing up at HQ soon, and he passes on that information to the Order members at HQ. He doesn't stay there himself, nor does he go to Dumbledore himself to tell him what's happening. He relies on Sirius to do it while he, Snape, searches the Forbidden Forest just in case HRH and friends are still there and the other Order members go to the MoM. It's *possible* that Snape left his office, ran all the way to Hogsmeade, and Apparated there and back, after which he searched the forest, but it would be a lot faster and more efficient, especially considering that Harry's going to the MoM was an emergency, to communicate by Patronus. DD, of course, suggests that he has done so, informing Harry that the Order members have more reliable means of communication than Umbridge's fireplace (and we later see other Order members using Patronuses to communicate). Snape could, of course, have used Umbridge's fireplace to send the second message, since Umbridge had not come back, but he could not have used it to send the first one, since Umbridge was still there. Another possibility, which makes more sense than taking the time to run to Hogsmeade to Apparate, is Dumbledore's fireplace. Unlike Umbridge, Snape probably still has access to Dumbledore's office, and it's possible that Dumbledore somehow prevented the MoM from monitoring it. If so, Snape could safely use it to communicate with both the Order and DD. However, since no one mentions that possibility and DD implies that Snape communicated with the Order using the usual method, I'm pretty sure that he used his Patronus and the other Order members simply didn't make the Lily connection, being too concerned with the content of his message to consider the form of his Patronus (Mad-eye, Kingsley, and Tonks would be unlikely to make the connection, while Black and Lupin would be aware of the "Mudblood" incident and would close their minds, IMO, to the possibility that Severus Snape still loved the long-dead Lily Potter. Surely, the ex-DE's Patronus couldn't represent the hated James's wife!). zgirnius: > Needing to unexpectedly leave the grounds to Apparate is an eventuality for which he must have been prepared, anyway. He could hardly have sent his Patronus in response to a summons by Lord Voldemort. Carol responds: Agreed that Snape wouldn't use a Patronus to communicate with LV and the DEs. However, as we see in DH, Voldemort and his DEs can use the Dark Mark to communicate. It's not just touching your Dark Mark to summon LV, or his touching someone else's Dark Mark to summon the DEs, in both cases, revealing the location. LV lets Snape know that he's coming to Hogwarts so that Snape can meet him, and he orders Alecto Carrow to enter the Ravenclaw common room because Harry Potter is coming there. Probably that's how he communicated his threats to Draco in HBP as well. (Barty Crouch Jr., who perhaps didn't have his Dark Mark when he was disguised as Mad-Eye Moody, used an eagle owl, probably Draco's, to communicate with LV in GoF, but it would probably be unsafe for Draco to communicate that way in HBP since owl post can somehow be monitored.) At any rate, the only time we know of that Snape leaves the Hogwarts grounds to communicate with Voldemort is at the end of GoF, when DD sends him there to report in person. And, of course, he has to leave Hogwarts at the end of HBP, having "murdered" Dumbledore. If and when he communicates with him at other times, especially during the school year, it's probably by Dark Mark (or in person if he's summoned). With regard to the Order, Snape reports to Order HQ directly in OoP, even when he's not presenting a report in a meeting or talking to Harry about Occlumency lessons, possibly because Harry is there and he doesn't want Harry to see his Patronus. But during the school year, when Harry isn't there, a Patronus would be much more efficient. (Besides, Snape reports directly to DD, even when DD isn't at Hogwarts, to inform him about the fake Veritaserum and the failure of Harry's Occlumency lessons. Whether he does so by Patronus or, since it's not an emergency, Apparates to whereever DD is hiding is not clear. It just occurred to me that DD could be staying at Order HQ, in which case, Phineas Nigellus could be Snape's messenger. In any case, he certainly knows where DD is and has been reporting to him in some way.) > Carol earlier: > > Carol, who likes to imagine Snape walking into Umbridge's office, alerted by Pansy Parkinson, and seeing Draco with bats flying all around his face zgirnius: > zgirnius, amused to note that this is exactly how it plays out in her fanfic. Carol responds: Makes sense, right? Otherwise, how could Snape have known that Harry and his friends went into the Forbidden Forest? I expect he had his hands full sorting out various jinxes and hexes while the Inquisitorial Squad all clamored to tell him how they'd been "attacked" by "Potter's" friends. Carol, who doesn't usually read fanfic but would find this one amusing if Zara would kindly offlist her with the link From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 20:23:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:23:33 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks In-Reply-To: <001b01c8a4e7$280f6f80$d8ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182634 Jerri/Dan Chase wrote: > > All the discussions of Harry's academic abilities (or lack thereof) and how the students who attended Hogwarts learned the basics like reading and maths (which I recall JKR said that some went to muggle elementary type schools and others were home schooled), has reminded me of a question in my mind about one of the classes that Harry and apparently all Hogwart's students took every year for the first 5 years of school. And that is Astronomy. > > And my question is: > > Why do they take Astronomy, for FIVE years, when there is so much > other stuff that they don't have time to study? Carol responds: They don't take Astronomy for five years. The core curriculum, required for all first- and second-years, is Potions, Transfiguration, Herbology, Charms (classes taught, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, by the Four Heads of Houses), Defense Against the Dark Arts, and History of Magic. In third year, the students are allowed to add optional subjects (electives, as we Americans call them) to their course of study. Harry and Ron, without any real knowledge to inform their choices, select Divination, COMC, and Divination. Hermione chooses, in addition to the same subjects, Ancient Runes, Arithmancy, and Muggle Studies (IOW, everything that's offered, so that she needs a Time-Turner to attend all her classes). Jerri: > And, why is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a required text for first year students at Hogwarts, when they don't take Care of Magical Creatures classes until third year? And isn't it supposed to be an optional class, even then? Every other book on their list is directly related to a class. Carol responds: Not quite every other book. There's also "Magical Theory" by Adalbert Waffling, which perhaps is used in the students' essay writing for various classes, most of which have a theoretical element as well as a practical one. Probably only the most motivated students, the Hermione Grangers and the Severus Snapes, or those, like the Marauders and the Twins, who want to create their own magical products, ever read that book, which, IIRC, is not mentioned again. (Maybe JKR just liked the name Adalbert Waffling and wanted to use it in relation to theory, for which she apparently doesn't have much use.) It appears that the students retain many of their textbooks from year to year, with only the Charms text and the DADA text changing every year and the Transfiguration text changing as they advance from beginning through intermediate to advanced. The Potions text changes when they reach NEWT year (what Snape would have assigned, we don't know, but I expect it would have been more up-to-date than the Libatius Borage text--or he'd have continued putting his Potions instructions on the board and assigned the book only for out-of-class reading). As for FB, possibly it's intended as a reference book for students, just as high-school and college students in the U.S. would be expected to buy a dictionary. And it's one of the rare textbooks that they would actually read for fun. (Hagrid resorts to using it when he finds that "The Monster Book of Monsters" isn't working quite as well as he expected. All the students would already have it.) Jerri: > And if the Weasley family is hard up for money, do they really need a complete set of Lockhart books for each of their five children at Hogwarts that year? Can't they share at all? Carol responds: I can see Fred and George sharing, as they're always together, but Ginny is in a different dorm, being a girl, and Percy isn't likely to share his books with his younger brothers and sisters. Ron would feel left out, and even more resentful of his family's relative poverty, than he does already without his own set. (At least Harry gives Ginny the ones that Lockhart gave him free and buys his own, which means that they would have to buy only three sets: Percy, the Twins, and Ron. Still, egomaniac Lockhart *is* putting a huge financial strain on families like the Weasleys. I suppose that, if worst came to worst, they could apply to the school for help buying books. DD tells Tom Riddle that there's a fund to help students to buy books and robes. And all their books except the Lockhart books are second-hand. Carol, who thinks that the Weasleys aren't quite as poor as Ron thinks they are, given that they don't have mortgage payments or utility bills and apparently grow or produce most of their own food From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 21:54:22 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 21:54:22 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182635 > Carol responds: > > Er, no. Snape informs *them* that Dumbledore will be coming to Order > quarters shortly and tells Sirius to wait: > > DD tells Harry, "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, > as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had > happened, for I was due there at any moment" (830). zgirnius: Your quote gives no indication that Snape told the Order Albus was coming. It just establishes that it was Snape who suggested Sirius wait for Albus. It could be he made contact, everyone agreed to go, and someone said "But what about Albus, who is coming?" and Snape asked Sirius to stay. Or it could be that they all knew Albus was coming (since several members were present - perhaps there was a preplanned meeting Snape and others knew about). Or it could be Snape knew because he had received a separate communication *from* Albus about his intentions. If Snape contacted Albus in any way that evening, Albus failed to mention it to Harry, and we have no indication what form that contact by Snape took. > Carol: > It's *possible* that Snape left his office, ran all the way to > Hogsmeade, zgirnius: It suffices to pass the main gate of the castle, which is a lot closer. This was established in HBP, "The Flight of the Prince". > Carol: > and Apparated there and back, after which he searched the > forest, but it would be a lot faster and more efficient, especially > considering that Harry's going to the MoM was an emergency, to > communicate by Patronus. zgirnius: I disagree. Getting to the gates on foot, at normal walking speed, requires very little time. A "few minutes" according to Harry in "Snape Victorious" (p. 161, bottom), and perhaps even less, seeing as in "Silver and Opals" it takes approximately a page of dialogue, without apparent interruption, from entering the grounds (bottom p. 251) to meeting Filch in the Entrance Hall (p. 252) How long does it take a Patronus to travel from Northern Scotland to London? We do not even know the answer to that question (as a quick glance at assorted pre-DH threads on Snape's nefarious plan to delay the Order will demonstrate). How interactive is Patronus communication, also? We see it come and deliver a fixed message, and that is all, leaving the sender dependent on the recipicent to respond. In an emergency, *being there* to make sure people are reacting as one would wish, might be worth a few minutes, especially ones that can be cut short by, say, running. Or flying, an exotic possibility that may well have been open to Snape. > Carol: > DD, of course, suggests that he has done so, > informing Harry that the Order members have more reliable means of > communication than Umbridge's fireplace (and we later see other Order > members using Patronuses to communicate). zgirnius: He does not even say Snape *used* the reliable method (which I agree a Patronus is). He stated the Order have such a method, not that Snape used it. Also, means in that statement can denote a plural - more than one such means. I don't see why Albus would need to hide this method from Harry in any case, regardless of what Snape did or did not use, because he has used a Patronus in front of Harry in the past. It must be a habit of his, never to make simple declarative statements of fact when talking to Harry, unless he absolutely, totally *must*. > Carol: > Another possibility, which makes more sense than taking the time to > run to Hogsmeade to Apparate, is Dumbledore's fireplace. zgirnius: I have already pointed out the flaw in your characterization of Apparition as a slow and cumbersome method. Snape does not have to run, he can fly, and he does not have to get all the way to Hogsmeade, merely out the gates. However, Flooing from Albus's office is certainly another option. And he could have used it not merely to speak into the fire, but to arrive bodily. > Carol: > If and when > he communicates with him at other times, especially during the school year, it's probably by Dark Mark (or in person if he's summoned). zgirnius: It is this last that I suggested, yes. Snape could be summoned by Voldemort while at the school, this would necessitate an appearance in person, and he would have to Apparate. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 23 22:44:54 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:44:54 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182636 Mike: > I'm coining a new acronym, because I'm going to use it alot in this post. YBSW = yeah, but so what? Carol responds: Thanks, Mike dear. I'm tempted to respond with YBSW to your entire post, but I'm restraining myself, knowing that you did it with no intention of hurting my feelings (and besides, it wouldn't help my argument). But, just so you know, it did hurt. I wouldn't say "so what" to you. Please don't say it to me. Carol earlier: > > Well, there's that Patronus, the one spell he's better at than Hermione, but he had lots of help and the advantage of training on a Boggart!Dementor. > > Mike: > YBSW? Lupin told us that many qualified wizards can't cast a Patronus. Here's Harry casting an effective and probably powerful one at age 13. He repelled hundreds of Dementors with it in PoA. Carol again: I am saying that, whatever Harry's natural gift for casting this spell, no one else has the advantage of special training at age thirteen from a competent DADA teacher (a rare commoditiy at Hogwarts in any case), and no one else has the advantage of a Dementor Boggart to practice on. It's one thing to cast the spell in the DA headquarters, where it's just fun; it's another to be able to cast it against a real Dementor. Harry had the opportunity to overcome his fear of a fake Dementor before facing a real one. Even then, he couldn't do it at thirteen until he saw "James" (really his future self) casting one--and he was not actually facing even one Dementor at the time. He was a safe distance away at Hagrid's, seeing himself and Sirius and Hermione in danger, and realizing that, in a sense, he had already cast it. And he can cast it again in OoP because he learned to cast it in PoA, when Dementors were guarding Hogwarts and when he had Lupin (who knew about Harry's Boggart) to help him. No one else has those advantages (Lupin, a Dementor Boggart) or circumstances that require them to learn the spell at such an early age (Dementors at Hogwarts, which affect Harry more than anyone else), not to mention a Time-Turner. Would he have learned to cast a Patronus at thirteen if Dementors had not come to Hogwarts that year? Probably not. there would have been no incentive. Would any other DADA teacher we've seen have given him private lessons? Not even Barty Jr., who attacked him a few extra times with the Imperius Curse for his own not-very-admirable reasons, would have done that. Snape gave him private lessons in Occlumency on DD's orders, and DD gave him private lessons in the history of Tom Riddle, but neither ever offers to help him learn DADA outside of school. Quirrell, Lockhart, and Umbridge certainly would not or could not have taught him. It's all circumstance, coincidence, luck. Why can't anyone else cast a corporeal Patronus at age thirteen? It's not taught, the DADA teachers (Snape and Lupin aside) are generally incompetent (and occasionally evil), the students themselves have no motivation to learn it, and none of them has the extra help Harry has. If you still don't understand my point, that's fine (just please don't reponds with YBSW). But I think there are perfectly good reasons why Harry, unlike most other third years, can cast a corporeal Patronus. And we find that many fifth years, and even a fourth year, Colin Creevey, can master the spell itself. It's just the part about facing an actual Dementor that they don't have to deal with (until the battle of Hgwarts, when they're in either their sixth or seventh year). Why can't Hermione, who is so much better than Harry at mastering most spells, including nonverbal spells, sustain a corporeal Patronus against real Dementors, even in DH? It's because, IMO, she didn't have a Boggart Dementor to practice on. (Heck, she can't even deal with her own Boggart, McGonagall telling her that she's failed everything, because she hasn't been allowed to practice! I'm not happy with Lupin in that regard. And, yes, I expect about twelve people to rush to his defense.) To return to Harry and his skills or powers, which I maintain are not for the most part that much greater than those of his fellow students except in that he's had experiences they haven't had and the need to learn spells that they haven't yet been taught. Harry, unlike his friends and fellow students, has been facing Voldemort in some form, or real Dementors that particularly affected him, since he encountered Quirrell!mort in first year. But in no case was it skill or natural aptitude that enabled him to defeat LV. (He does, however, have courage and extremely good luck, along with help from Hermione, Dumbledore, and others.) SS/PS: His mother's love stopped Quirrell!mort, Quirell died when LV left his body and LV returned to Vapor form, and DD (who had made sure that Harry had his Invisibility Cloak and knew how the mirror worked) came to his rescue. Harry's contribution, aside from catching the key in the Charms challenge, was courage, determination, and a pure heart that kept him from wanting the stone for himself. But the skill and knowledge, aside from the chess game that Ron won, was all Hermione's. CoS: I'm sure you've read my recent posts, but I'll reiterate, leaving out my argument that DD provided the protections. Harry spoke Parseltongue (thanks to LV) and could consequently open the Chamber. Fawkes blinded the Basilisk, provided the Sorting from which Harry could pull the Sword of Gryffindor, healed Harry's wounds, and carried him to safety. Harry used the Basilisk fang to destroy the diary, not knowing that it was a Horcrux, which, in turn, restored Ginny's soul to her body. What did Harry contribute? Quite a bit, but none of it (except Parseltongue) depended on Harry's skill and power and knowledge. What mattered was loyalty to Dumbledore (Fawkes) and "conditions of need and valor" (the Sword). Harry's being a Gryffindor also helped, and only he could have opened the Chamber, but once he got there, what he needed (aside from Fawkes's help and a weapon other than a wand, was his own courage and resourcefulness--more or less what Snape says in HBP is required for a person fighting the Darks Arts. But Harry doesn't cast a single spell against Tom Riddle, who takes his wand early on, nor does he know any useful defensive spell except Expelliarmus at this point. PoA: I've spent much of this post discussing PoA and the Dementors. Yes, Harry learns and masters a particular spell at an early age, but that in itself does not show that he's particularly powerful. Hermione can conjure blue fire and bottle it in her first year; Ginny can cast a Bat-Bogey Hex as a fourth year. Severus Snape comes to school at eleven knowing more hexes and jinxes than most seventh years. His father and his friends create the Marauder's Map in, IIRC, their fifth year. The Weasley Twins create all sorts of magical products in their fifth year and beyond. Harry is one of many students with particular skills or talents, and his Patronus does manifest itself rather early, but it's the only spell at which he's unusually good, and there are excellent reasons for that being the case. GoF: The spells he masters, under Hermione's direction, are ordinary DADA spells that he should have learned under a competent teacher. Which leads me to wonder why the heck Barty Jr., who was demonstrating Unforgiveable Curses in front of fourth years, actually using the Imperius Curse on them, and at one point (quote not handy but I can find it if pressed) hexes them in class as a quiz, and who wants Harry to win the TWT against seventh years, isn't teaching the fourth years the spells that they need. Dean Thomas later tells Umbridge that the students "learned loads" under Fake!Moody, yet they didn't learn Stupefy, Protego, Impedimenta, or Reducto, all discovered for Harry by Hermione and learned by him (but apparently not by Hermione or Ron) because he was practicing for the TWT? So, yes. He wins the TWT, more or less, having used Quidditch skills to get past the dragon, gillyweed to survive the Second Task (true, he got past "zee grindylows" and Fleur didn't) and the ordinary DADA spells that Fake!Moody should have taught the whole class to get past the Acromantula and the Skrewt (the Sphinx only asked a Riddle and Fake!Moody had cleared most of the obstacles out of Harry's way), but the confrontation against Voldemort was won with Expelliarmus--and only because Harry's wand was the brother wand of Voldemort's. Had the echoes not come out of the wand and allowed him to escape, neither courage nor quick thinking would have helped him. As Harry tells Cho, "all this stuff," meaning the spells that Harry is teaching the DA, didn't help Cedric, who already knew them or he could not have survived the tournament. Nor would Harry have survived if it hadn't been for the brother wands. He can resist an Imperius Curse, true, but he can't fight a Crucio. As for AK, no one can survive that--unless they're protected by fate, luck, their mother's self-sacrifice, and a drop of blood that they happen to share with Voldemort. (Voldie's mistakes always help Harry without Harry needing any special powers other than the ones residing in the scar or his own wand.) OoP: Harry does better than the other DA members (whose DA lessons haven't adequately prepared them to deal with DEs, much less LV himself) against the DEs, but he's ready to hand the Prophecy Orb to Lucius Malfoy when the Order members arrive. And he manages an inept Crucio against Bellatrix but doesn't get much of a chance to duel with her because LV and DD arrive. Harry and Bellatrix are both pinned to the wall by parts of the Fountain of Magical Brethren, taking no part in the battle between the superwizards. LV possesses Harry and is defeated, not by Harry's skill or magical power, in the sense of ability to cast powerful spells, but by "the power that the Dark Lord knows not," love. Had it not been for Dumbledore's arrival, LV would have used AK on Harry, destroyed his own Horcrux, and perhaps discovered that "neither could *die* while the other survived" (deliberate alteration of the Prophecy) because of his blunder with the drop of blood. Exactly what he'd have done with Harry at that point, I don't know, but I don't think that Harry would have been in any shape for Horcrux lessons with DD, nor would he have been allowed to return for them. HBP: Harry doesn't fight, LV, only his supposed lieutenant, Snape, and is trounced. DH: Harry defeats LV, with the help of Hermione, Ron, Snape, and the participants in the Battle of Hogwarts, not to mention Dobby, Griphook, Ollivander, Mr. Lovegood, and even Vincent Crabbe, by 1) destroying the Horcruxes (Parseltongue and the scar, both the unwitting gifts to Harry from LV, prove indispensable, as do Hermione's concealment spells, but Harry's wand, not Harry himself, casts the only spectacular spell, the Unforgiveables not being an indication of Harry's skill or power. Any fool, even Amycus Carrow or Vincent Crabbe, can cast them, apparently, at least once he's of age) 2) sacrificing himself and destroying the scar Horcrux, the "power that the Dark Lord knows not," love, weakening all of LV's spells, and 3) using Expelliarmus once again, which works only because he has accidentally become the master of the Elder wand. Mike: As Dumbledore proved himself, the key to defeating Voldemort wasn't to out-duel him. Carol: Exactly! That's my whole point. Harry's power and his talent (if that's what it is) for casting a Patronus (and all those other spells that somehow didn't help the DA much) are beside the point. Harry doesn't defeat Voldemort because he's better at DADA than anyone else (thanks to special circumstances like the TWT). He's just an ordinary Wizard kid when it comes to school subjects, which he only studies when he has to, not a genius or a prodigy at anything except Quidditch. And helpful as the DADA spells were in winning the last leg of the TWT, they would not in themselves have enabled Harry and friends to defeat the DEs in OoP, and if Harry can't defeat Snape using them, I very much doubt that they would have helped him against Voldemort. What helps Harry against Voldemort is first, the powers that LV inadvertenly gave him when he "marked him as his equal"--Parseltongue and the scar connection--and second, setting aside luck and help from more talented friends, as Snape puts it, "the power that the Dark Lord knows not," love. Carol earlier: > > Harry does have the power to block the Imperius Curse, > We aren't told, but, either way, I don't see how a natural ability would be to his credit, any more than Hermione is responsible for her own good memory and powers of concentration. Mike: This is a confusing statement. Why wouldn't Harry's, Hermione's, or anyone's natural abilities be to their credit? Carol again: We're getting into side issues here, and I don't want to detract from the main argument above, but what I meant (feel free to disagree) is that the talents we're born with are not our own doing. I'm good at spelling, for example, but to the extent that that's a natural ability, as opposed to something I briefly worked at to win some spelling championships at age thirteen, I don't see why I should receive credit for that ability any more than Harry should receive credit for being a Parselmouth (or Hermione for the good memory that she's born with, as opposed to the hard work that she puts into her homework, for which I do give her credit). Now, if Harry had managed to master Occlumency after effort and fighting his own antipathy toward Snape and his desire to have that dream, I'd give him credit, lots of credit, for that. And I do give him credit for the effort he putting into learning to cast the Patronus Charm (though, in that case, he was motivated to learn). It's just that he had advantages not available to anyone else who was trying to learn it. Try using a Snape Boggart or a mummy Boggart (or a full moon Boggart) to learn to cast that spell and see how well it works when you're faced with a real Dementor sucking the happiness out of you. Why can't Hermione do it? IMO, because she didn't have a Boggart substitute to practice on. McGonagall, scary as she would be if she were telling a student that the student had failed all her classes, just wouldn't do the trick. Mike: Harry repelled fully reconstituted Voldemort's Imperius. Why is this "powerfully magical" demonstration not to Harry's credit? After all, isn't Tom Riddle powerfully magical himself and isn't that why he is able to perform those fantastic spells? (Besides being bright enough to learn them and being a world-wise traveller that discovers them.) Carol responds: As I said, this is a side issue and not part of my main argument, just my own personal opinion. I don't see how powers that a person is born with (or acquires through a rebounded spell or whatever) can be to that person's credit. Is it to Barty Crouch's or Dumbledore's or Snape's credit that they're powerfully magical? Is it Ron's fault that he isn't, as far as we can tell? Why should they be credited with abilities that they were born with or scorned, as Wizards in general scorn Muggles, for abilities and powers that they were born without? Should I be criticized for having been born without perfect pitch or natural athletic aptitude? If I were to overcome those natural deficiencies and learn to sing opera or play tournament basketball through hard work and long practice, I'd have done something praiseworthy. And even people who become successful in those fields as the result of natural talent have also done something praiseworthy because they have used that talent to best advantage, polishing it and practicing it and supplementing it with acquired skills. Hermione's good memory is not in itself praiseworthy. It's the uses to which she puts it that deserve commendation. Fleur is born beautiful and Tom Riddle handsome. should we praise them for that? I thought not. Then why should we praise Hermione's intellect or Harry's apparently natural ability to repel an Imperius Curse? Very lucky for him that he has that ability, but why should we praise him when he did nothing to acquire it? We might as well praise him for deflecting the AK that rebounded because of his mother's self-sacrifice. For the record, I am not attacking Harry, whom I have argued at length is the only one who could have defeated Voldemort thanks to the events at Godric's Hollow. I'm saying that he is, in a sense, an Everyman or Everykid faced with an enemy whose powers are far vaster than his own--and all the more admirable for that. His weapons, for the most part, are not superpowers but courage and resourcefulness and love. If Harry were a second Grindelwald, brilliant and powerful and talented but not tempted to the Dark side because Voldemort had killed his parents, would we care so much about him? Would we worry when he confronted Death Eaters, even if the DEs were as gifted and intelligent as Snape (which, sadly, most of them aren't)? Or if the book were about Dumbledore and the climax was a battle like the one at the MoM, would we be so emotionally invested in it, even setting aside DD's manipulativeness and other character flaws? It's the fact that Harry is just a kid, far outmatched despite the advantages of speaking Parseltongue and seeing into Voldemort's mind, that make the reader (most readers, anyway) root for him. Carol, hoping that Mike, whom she holds in great affection and esteem, will refrain from saying "so what?" in response to her posts in future From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 00:07:09 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:07:09 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182637 Carol earlier: > > > > Er, no. Snape informs *them* that Dumbledore will be coming to Order quarters shortly and tells Sirius to wait: > > > > DD tells Harry, "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain > behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had happened, for I was due there at any moment" (830). > > zgirnius: > Your quote gives no indication that Snape told the Order Albus was coming. It just establishes that it was Snape who suggested Sirius wait for Albus. It could be he made contact, everyone agreed to go, and someone said "But what about Albus, who is coming?" and Snape asked Sirius to stay. Or it could be that they all knew Albus was coming (since several members were present - perhaps there was a preplanned meeting Snape and others knew about). Or it could be Snape knew because he had received a separate communication *from* Albus about his intentions. If Snape contacted Albus in any way that evening, Albus failed to mention it to Harry, and we have no indication what form that contact by Snape took. Carol responds: Obviously, we're reading the passage differently. To me, it says quite unambiguously that Snape wanted Sirius to wait for Dumbledore because *Snape* "needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell [DD] what had happened" and *snape* knew that DD was coming to 12 GP shortly. (As in, "Black, you need to stay here because Dumbledore is coming in about five minutes and I need someone to tell him what has happened.") It's definitely Snape who "need[s] somebody to stay." That much is in the quote itself. And why would Snape "need somebody to stay" if he didn't know that DD was coming and would need to be informed? And you're not responding to my other examples. Dumbledore also knew that Snape had given Umbridge fake Veritaserum *after* DD had left the school and that Snape had stopped giving Harry Occlumency lessons because Harry had entered the Pensieve and seen the memory of James tormenting Severus (page numbers on request)--neither of which DD could have known unless Snape told him. (Yes, Lupin said that he would talk to *Snape* about resuming Occlumency lessons, but he didn't say anything about going to DD about it. Nor do I think that Snape would have dared to stop the lessons without informing DD that he had done so and why.) I don't think that Snape contacted DD on the evening in question, or if he did, as you say, DD fails to mention it (which could be because he's concealing his close connection Snape from Harry but is more likely because it didn't happen). That's not what I'm saying, which is that DD's knowledge of Snape's doings, in particular the fake Veritaserum, which DD could not have learned about through Kreacher, indicate that Snape and DD were communicating with each other in some manner (probably but not necessarily Patronuses) after Dumbledore left Hogwarts. > Carol earlier: > > It's *possible* that Snape left his office, ran all the way to Hogsmeade, > > zgirnius: > It suffices to pass the main gate of the castle, which is a lot closer. This was established in HBP, "The Flight of the Prince". Carol again: With regard to the main gate of the castle not being in Hogsmeade, I thought that Hogwarts bordered Hogsmeade and that the main gate led into Hogsmeade. If it doesn't, it doesn't matter, because what I meant was, "it's *possible* Snape left his office and ran all the way to the main gate, as he did in HBP," so we're talking about the same thing here. And you saw how long that took, pages of Harry chasing Snape. It's a lot faster, especially when Harry and his friends are in danger, to send a Patronus. > zgirnius: > I disagree. Getting to the gates on foot, at normal walking speed, requires very little time. A "few minutes" according to Harry in "Snape Victorious" (p. 161, bottom), and perhaps even less, seeing as in "Silver and Opals" it takes approximately a page of dialogue, without apparent interruption, from entering the grounds (bottom p. 251) to meeting Filch in the Entrance Hall (p. 252) Carol: In HBP, the chase takes several pages. Be that as it may, Snape wouldn't have "a few minutes." Once he realizes that Harry may have somehow left the grounds to get to the MoM, every second counts. Again, agree to disagree. We're not going to convince each other, apparently. And, as I said, DD indicates that Snape communicated with the Order using the usual method, which we find out in HBP is Patronuses. zgirnius: > How long does it take a Patronus to travel from Northern Scotland to London? How interactive is Patronus communication, also? We see it come and deliver a fixed message, and that is all, leaving the sender dependent on the recipicent to respond. In an emergency, *being there* to make sure people are reacting as one would wish, might be worth a few minutes, especially ones that can be cut short by, say, running. Or flying, an exotic possibility that may well have been open to Snape. Carol responds: In DH, Kingsley's Patronus warning that the Ministry has fallen seems to arrive instantaneously. It gets to the Weasleys' house just before the Death Eaters do, and they are probably Apparating. As for interactive communication, I imagine that it's like a phone conversation. You respond with your own Patronus message. (I'm the first to agree that JKR hasn't thought it all out and that communication by Phoenix may not be as efficient as Dumbledore claims. I'm also the first to admit that the books aren't always consistent with each other and that JKR doesn't always check her own facts. She certainly hasn't answered all our questions about communication by Patronus. I'm only going by what canon seems to indicate, and that is, that Snape communicated with the Order by Patronus.) As for Snape's ability to fly, obviously JKR didn't want to give that information away in OoP, but I can't see him flying all the way to London when a Patronus is, apparently, instantaneous, and he needs to be at Hogwarts to search the Forbidden Forest. I think we should stay with canon within OoP itself or earlier here, and we do see a Patronus used for communication as early as GoF (DD sends one to Hagrid after Krum is Stunned and Mr. Crouch disappears). > Carol: > > DD, of course, suggests that he has done so, informing Harry that the Order members have more reliable means of communication than Umbridge's fireplace (and we later see other Order members using Patronuses to communicate). > > zgirnius: > He does not even say Snape *used* the reliable method (which I agree a Patronus is). He stated the Order have such a method, not that Snape used it. Carol responds: That's true. DD *implies* that Snape used that method. If he had said so directly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if a Patronus is reliable, as you concede, why on earth wouldn't Snape use it (assuming good intentions and loyalty to DD as established in DH)? zgirnius: Also, means in that statement can denote a plural - more than one such means. Carol: Only we don't see any other such means, do we? The Order communicates by Patronus, except on those occasions when they pop into Order HQ in person. Snape, of course, communicates with DD in person when DD is at Hogwarts. My question is how he communicates with him, as he obviously does (see Veritaserum example above) when DD is not at Hogwarts. I'm raising a Patronus as the most obvious (and reliable) means, but perhaps there are others. I suggested the fireplace in DD's office as one possibility. Unfortunately, there's no canon to support that idea. There is, however, canon to show that Phineas Nigellus can leave DD's office and go to his portrait in 12 GP and he does so in OoP itself. And there's canon in both HBP (quotes on request) and DH (quotes not necessary, I hope!) to show that Phineas Nigellus is, so to speak, a Snape fan and would happily run errands for him. But I don't think that's what DD is referring to since the Order in general don't seem to use that method. zgirnius: I don't see why Albus would need to hide this method from Harry in any case, regardless of what Snape did or did not use, because he has used a Patronus in front of Harry in the past. It must be a habit of his, never to make simple declarative statements of fact when talking to Harry, unless he absolutely, totally *must*. Carol: Or JKR wants to withhold the information for some reason. She certainly doesn't want the reader to be aware of Snape's doe Patronus. And certainly, there's no reason for DD to identify or explain the more reliable means of communication, singular or plural, when he has much more pressing matters to discuss. > > > Carol: > > Another possibility, which makes more sense than taking the time to run to Hogsmeade to Apparate, is Dumbledore's fireplace. > > zgirnius: > I have already pointed out the flaw in your characterization of Apparition as a slow and cumbersome method. ,snip> Carol: You call it a flaw, but that's your opinion, not mine. May I refer you to pages 600-602 of the HBP American edition, in which Snape runs rather than flying (perhaps he didn't know how to do that yet?) and it takes several minutes to get from the entrance hall to the main gate, even though, unlike Harry, he's not being hindered by Death Eaters? (I'm not counting the tun from the tower to the entrance hall, which would be longer than the run from Snape's dungeon office or Umbridge's office to the entrance hall.) I didn't say that Apparition itself was "a slow and cumbersome method." I didn't even use those words, IIRC. Of course, Apparition takes seconds, in itself. It's the run through the castle and across the Hogwarts grounds that's time-consuming. And even a minute or two is two long if the message is urgent, as Snape's second message was. (The first one was not so urgent, since he fully expected to find Sirius Black safe in 12 GP, but he did need to inform him that Harry had received Voldie's vision and believed it to be true. However, I see no reason not to use a Patronus for both messages.) zgirnius: However, Flooing from Albus's office is certainly another option. And he could have used it not merely to speak into the fire, but to arrive bodily. Carol responds: I agree. The only problem is, there's no indication in the books that he used that method. It's possible, only possible, that DD's office was watched by the MoM, since Umbridge says that hers was the only fireplace that wasn't watched, and it's also possible, only possible, that Snape temporarily couldn't get into the office because it was blocked to everyone, even loyal staff members, other than the rightful occupant, Dumbledore. If either is the case, then he couldn't or wouldn't have used DD's fireplace. Nevertheless, since I suggested it, I do think it would be a better option than an exhange of Patronuses because it would allow fact-to-face communication. I'm not arguing that a face-to-face meeting wouldn't have been preferable. I'm arguing that that doesn't seem to be what happened. The evidence, such as it is, is that Snape used a Patronus to communicate with the Order on the night in question (did I brilliantly type "Phoenix" by mistake somewhere upthread? I did that just now). And I'm also arguing, as a separate point, that he used some means to communicate with DD after DD left Hogwarts in OoP. DD knew things that only Snape could have told him, the fake Veritaserum being the best example. Carol, who thinks that even if JKR gives us an explanation of how Snape communicated, it may not be satisfactory given the gaps and inconsistencies in the various books, in this instance, OoP and DH From zgirnius at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 01:39:19 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 01:39:19 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182638 > OotP: > > "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain > > behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me > what had happened, for I was due there at any moment" (830). > Carol responds: > (As in, "Black, you need to stay here because Dumbledore is coming in > about five minutes and I need someone to tell him what has happened.") zgirnius: At the moment Snape said to Black, "You need to stay", he obviously knew Albus was coming. So far, we are agreed. But where in the passage do you see unambiguous proof that Snape, and Snape *only*, had prior knowledge (prior to Snape's own arrival at HQ) of Albus's plans? Albus is hardly going to give Harry a blow-by-blow of a hypothetical in-person conversation between Severus and a group of order members *at which he was not even present*. Suppose Snape strides down the corridor of 12 GP, towards the door to the stairs leading to the kitchen looking for Sirius and anyone else he can send after Harry, and Kingsley (who expects Albus to be arriving shortly) shouts up at Snape "Albus? Is that you?" Snape comes in, explains the situation, and, since Kingsley has made clear Albus is coming...asks Sirius to stay. I fail to see how this is not consistent with Albus's summation of the events. Maybe others knew too, but Snape *thought of it*, or *thought of a logical solution* (Sirius *is* the logical choice to leave behind if anyone is to be left - he is a fugitive, unlike the others ) because he is a clear-headed and logical individual, even in a crisis. Or, the others may have assumed Snape would tell Albus himself. After all, if Snape was in the habit of sending Patronus messages to Albus and other Order members, why could he not simply do that in this case? Why ask Sirius to stay? > Carol: > And you're not responding to my other examples. zgirnius: I already did. My original response covers all possible contacts by Snape with all possibe Order members, including Albus. Snape could have Apparated, answers them all. > > zgirnius: > > It suffices to pass the main gate of the castle, which is a lot > closer. This was established in HBP, "The Flight of the Prince". > Carol: > Be that as it may, Snape > wouldn't have "a few minutes." zgirnius: How long did it take him to leave Hogwarts airborne in DH? You are still insisting he walked. > Carol responds: > In DH, Kingsley's Patronus warning that the Ministry has fallen seems > to arrive instantaneously. It gets to the Weasleys' house just before > the Death Eaters do, and they are probably Apparating. zgirnius: I actually considered this scene, as the one most likely to give us an answer to the question about speed of patronus communiation. The problem is, Kingsley could have sent the warning before the Death Eaters Apparated. Maybe he heard them talking about it, making final plans about who would do what once they got there, or maybe, he saw/heard them working on taking down the magical protections around the Burrow and sent the warning, so there was a delay of a few minutes. Ottery St. Catchpole is on the South Coast, and Kinglsey was in London, so the delay would not have to be long to make flying + Apparition the winning method when communicating between Hogwarts and London. > Carol: > As for > interactive communication, I imagine that it's like a phone > conversation. You respond with your own Patronus message. (I'm the > first to agree that JKR hasn't thought it all out and that > communication by Phoenix may not be as efficient as Dumbledore claims. zgirnius: How well this works, depends on whether or not there is a delay. > Carol: > As for Snape's ability to fly, obviously JKR didn't want to give that > information away in OoP, but I can't see him flying all the way to > London zgirnius: My susggestion is that he flew from the nearest window to the gate, and then Apparated. > Carol: > I think we should stay > with canon within OoP itself or earlier here, and we do see a Patronus > used for communication as early as GoF (DD sends one to Hagrid after > Krum is Stunned and Mr. Crouch disappears). zgirnius: There is no canon about how Snape communicated with the order that night. None. There is canon that you interpret as hinting he used a Patronus. I have a different interpretation, though I certainly see the basis for yours. > > zgirnius: > > He does not even say Snape *used* the reliable method (which I agree > a Patronus is). He stated the Order have such a method, not that Snape > used it. > > Carol responds: > That's true. DD *implies* that Snape used that method. If he had said > so directly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And if a Patronus > is reliable, as you concede, why on earth wouldn't Snape use it > (assuming good intentions and loyalty to DD as established in DH)? zgirnius: I already explained it, but am happy to reiterate. Two reasons: 1) If there is any delay at all, flying to the boundary of the Anti- Apparition ward and then Apparating is at least as fast, and no less reliable. 2) Snape is a bit of a control freak, especially when Harry's life is at stake. He wants to be there and SEE that he is believed, and action is taken. > Carol: > Only we don't see any other such means, do we? zgirnius: Well, we do see plenty of Order members Apparate. > Carol: > Or JKR wants to withhold the information for some reason. She > certainly doesn't want the reader to be aware of Snape's doe Patronus. zgirnius: Mentioning that Snape sent his Patronus wuold hardly reveal its form. Rowling just has to write Harry not asking the question. > Carol: > And certainly, there's no reason for DD to identify or explain the > more reliable means of communication, singular or plural, when he has > much more pressing matters to discuss. zgirnius: Exactly why I do not think it in any way indicates how Snape communicated. The statement is not informing Harry or us about the details of how Snape communicated, or the various ways in which other Order members might do so. It is a very gentle reminder to Harry that going to an Order member, not Umbridge's Floo, was a more reliable means of communicating. Much nicer than saying "WHY DID YOU NOT GO TO SNAPE?!" > Carol: > (The first one was not so urgent, since he fully expected to find Sirius Black safe in 12 GP, but he did need to inform him that Harry had received Voldie's vision and believed it to be true. However, I see no reason not to use a Patronus for both messages.) zgirnius: You may not, but I think Snape would have. I do not believe Snape would have wanted Sirius to see his Patronus. He might as well have just showed it to Harry (which apparently he does not wish to do, since in HBP he teaches some other way to deal with Dementors.) After all, Harry and Sirius could be expected to spend a good deal of the rapidly apporaching summer together. > Carol: > And I'm also arguing, as a separate point, that he used some means to > communicate with DD after DD left Hogwarts in OoP. zgirnius: I am not debating this point. It seems evident. My only interest in it was to suggest that such meetings could have been in person. > Carol, who thinks that even if JKR gives us an explanation of how > Snape communicated, it may not be satisfactory given the gaps and > inconsistencies in the various books, in this instance, OoP and DH zgirnius: I find my solution both satisfactory and consistent with all available canon. Also with interviews which have touched upon the matter to date, the only one of which I am aware being the Bloomsbury chat: > jenny: How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order? > J.K. Rowling: He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance. From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 02:19:38 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:19:38 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182639 > Carol responds: > It's *possible* that Snape left his office, ran all the way to > Hogsmeade, and Apparated there and back, after which he searched the > forest, but it would be a lot faster and more efficient, especially > considering that Harry's going to the MoM was an emergency, to > communicate by Patronus. DD, of course, suggests that he has done so, > informing Harry that the Order members have more reliable means of > communication than Umbridge's fireplace (and we later see other Order > members using Patronuses to communicate). Snape could, of course, have > used Umbridge's fireplace to send the second message, since Umbridge > had not come back, but he could not have used it to send the first > one, since Umbridge was still there. > > Another possibility, which makes more sense than taking the time to > run to Hogsmeade to Apparate, is Dumbledore's fireplace. Unlike > Umbridge, Snape probably still has access to Dumbledore's office, and > it's possible that Dumbledore somehow prevented the MoM from > monitoring it. If so, Snape could safely use it to communicate with > both the Order and DD. However, since no one mentions that possibility > and DD implies that Snape communicated with the Order using the usual > method, I'm pretty sure that he used his Patronus and the other Order > members simply didn't make the Lily connection, being too concerned > with the content of his message to consider the form of his Patronus > (Mad-eye, Kingsley, and Tonks would be unlikely to make the > connection, while Black and Lupin would be aware of the "Mudblood" > incident and would close their minds, IMO, to the possibility that > Severus Snape still loved the long-dead Lily Potter. Surely, the > ex-DE's Patronus couldn't represent the hated James's wife!). Montavilla47: It's interesting how close you are to what I came up with to explain how Snape contacted the Order on that night. As you later mentioned, I thought that Phineas Nigellus would be the most effective way for Snape to contact the order initially. (I wasn't sure how long it would take a patronus to travel from Hogwarts to London--but the portraits seem to travel almost instantly.) I doubt very muh that Snape ran all the way to Hogwarts to apparate to Dumbledore for one very compelling reason-- by the time Harry and friends disappeared, Dolores Umbridge had also done so. Hagrid had fled into the hills, Dumbledore was off somewhere else, and Minerva McGonagall was in the hospital. Had Snape left the school that night, he would have been leaving it vulnerable to any kind of mischief (especially from the students!) In case anyone is interested (I know I keep putting this up for reading, but it explains things better than I can in a single post), here is the address for the story: http://www.sugarquill.net/read.php?storyid=2786&chapno=1 From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Thu Apr 24 18:01:56 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:01:56 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks References: <1209040424.3129.7880.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001d01c8a635$6d449db0$30ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182640 > Carol responds: > They don't take Astronomy for five years. The core curriculum, > required for all first- and second-years, is Potions, > Transfiguration, > Herbology, Charms (classes taught, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps > not, by the Four Heads of Houses), Defense Against the Dark Arts, > and > History of Magic. It's true that Astronomy class isn't mentioned often, but there are reasons I think that they take Astronomy for their first 5 years at Hogwarts: 1. In SS, page 133, when describing their classes it says: (Page numbers from U.S. hardback editions) "They had to study the night skies through their telescopes every Wednesday at midnight." (True, it doesn't call the class Astronomy, but what else would it be?) 2. Later in SS, page 242, when they get caught after getting rid of Norbert: ". . . let alone being up the tallest astronomy tower, which was out-of-bounds except for classes." (True, it doesn't say that HRH were in classes that met there, but if not, how did they know how to get to the tower? When they need to find the North Tower for their first divination class they have no idea of how to get there, but not only do they know how to get to this "tallest astronomy tower", but Charlie assumed that they would know how to find it as well.) 3. In PoA, page 318, they all have an Astronomy exam: "Then came Astronomy at midnight, up on the tallest tower; ..." (And Astronomy wasn't listed as a "new" class, so I again assume that it had been a consistant part of their class work from the beginning, although not often mentioned.) 5. In OoP there are a number of Astronomy references. I don't have page numbers for them, I can't find my book at the moment, but wasn't it in this book that Harry and Ron are writing essays on Jupiter's moons, which Hermonie fixes for them. Harry had Mice on one moon instead of Ice, and I think Ron's essay was worse than that. Also, of course, they all take an OWL exam in Astronomy, both a theory one in the morning and the practical at night, when they observe the fates of Hagrid and McGonagall. Would Ron and Harry write essays or take exams for something that they didn't have to for class? I feel pretty sure that there were other occasional references to Astronomy throughout the books, for example, when they did the Astrology portion of Divination they said or thought something about what they had learned in Astronomy. So, I hold by my belief that the Hogwarts core curriculum for the first 5 years included Astronomy. Jerri From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 20:24:13 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 20:24:13 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182641 OotP: > > > "Professor Snape requested that Sirius remain behind, as he needed somebody to remain at headquarters to tell me what had happened, for I was due there at any moment" (830). > > > Carol responds: > > (As in, "Black, you need to stay here because Dumbledore is coming in about five minutes and I need someone to tell him what has happened.") > > zgirnius: > At the moment Snape said to Black, "You need to stay", he obviously > knew Albus was coming. So far, we are agreed. But where in the > passage do you see unambiguous proof that Snape, and Snape *only*, > had prior knowledge (prior to Snape's own arrival at HQ) of Albus's > plans? Suppose Snape strides down the corridor of 12 GP, towards the door to the stairs leading to the kitchen looking for Sirius and anyone else he can send after Harry, and Kingsley (who expects Albus to be > arriving shortly) shouts up at Snape "Albus? Is that you?" > > Snape comes in, explains the situation, and, since Kingsley has made clear Albus is coming...asks Sirius to stay. I fail to see how this is not consistent with Albus's summation of the events. Carol responds: Dumbledore says that Snape, and no one else, needed someone to stay and update him. Any other interpretation is reading something in that isn't there. zgirnius: > After all, if Snape was in the habit of sending Patronus messages to Albus and other Order members, why could he not simply do that in this case? Why ask Sirius to stay? Carol responds: Because there's no point in sending DD a Patronus when DD is going to be at HQ at any moment. Whoever stays (Snape expects it to be Sirius) can update DD in person. Meanwhile, Snape also has an important job to do, which will take some time and can't wait--search the forest in case the kides are still there--with Umbridge of facing Centaurs or Acromantulas or whtever else in in the forest. > > > Carol: > > And you're not responding to my other examples. > > zgirnius: > I already did. My original response covers all possible contacts by Snape with all possibe Order members, including Albus. Snape could have Apparated, answers them all. Carol: I meant, you haven't explained how you think DD could know that the Occlumency lessons ended and why (he's obviously heard Snape's story) or how he knew about the fake Veritaserum that Snape gave Umbridge. Both incidents happened after DD left, and neither Harry nor Umbridge would or could have told him. And Snape could have sent a Patronus much more easily than he could have Apparated, which requires leaving Hogwarts grounds. And wouldn't Dumbledore just say, "Why don't you send a Patronus, Severus?" Snape has no reason to hide his Patronus from DD or be ashamed of it; DD knows he's doing everything for Lily (even if he doesn't realize the depth and intensity of Snape's love, or the guilt associated with it--I wonder if his telling Harry that the SWM is painful for Snape because of James indicates that DD really doesn't know that the pain is because of Lily or whether he's covering up the Lily aspect to protect Snape?) Besides, Apparating to DD could give away DD's hiding place and would be much more dangerous (as well as requiring more effort because of the necessity of secretly leaving the grounds--he wouldn't want Filch or Umbridge or anyone else to see him. Heck, McGonagall might think he was going to see Voldemort.) The whole point of sending a message by Patronus is that it's efficient and reliable. Probably, it can't be tracked, either, whereas a person who Apparates is always in danger of being seen after he *Dis*apparates. I could buy Snape's using DD's fireplace if we had any evidence that he could or would do so, but since that method of communication isn't mentioned and Umbridge says that *all* of the fireplaces except hers are being watched, I don't think that's his method. It's plausible or I wouldn't have suggested it, but there's no reference to it in the text, whereas there's plenty to suggest that Patronuses are the usual method of communication by the Order. (If Snape is with the DEs, of course he's not going to cast a Patronus. But, then, he wouldn't communicate with DD or the Order in any way when he's with them.) > > zgirnius: > How long did it take him to leave Hogwarts airborne in DH? You are still insisting he walked. Carol responds: Surely, if Snape ever flew at Hogwarts before DH, someone would have seen him. (Maybe he didn't do it because it seemed like a Dark power and didn't want to arouse suspicion; maybe he didn't know how yet--if he really learned it from "his master," it was probably after the death of DD; maybe he wanted the ability to be a secret.) I'm not insisting that *did* walk (or run) to the gates to Apparate because I don't think he used that method of communication. I'm "insisting" that he *would have* walked (or more likely, run) *if* he needed to go to the gates to Apparate (which, as I've already argued, he probably would not have done because a Patronus is easier and more reliable). Every time we have seen him leaving or entering the building at Hogwarts (until DH), he has either walked or run. For example, Harry sees him heading for the Forbidden Forest in SS/PS and recognizes him by his "prowling walk." He walks to the gate to escort Harry to the Great Hall in HBP after the Draco incident on the Hogwarts Express. He runs (with Draco in tow) after the "murder" of DD. (Either he wants to be on the ground to make sure that the DEs and Draco get off the grounds and Harry is safe or he doesn't know how to fly yet.) But even if he *could* fly just long enough to get past the gates to Apparate, why risk being seen when a Patronus is faster and more efficient? > Carol earlier: > > In DH, Kingsley's Patronus warning that the Ministry has fallen seems to arrive instantaneously. It gets to the Weasleys' house just before the Death Eaters do, and they are probably Apparating. > > zgirnius: > I actually considered this scene, as the one most likely to give us an answer to the question about speed of patronus communiation. The problem is, Kingsley could have sent the warning before the Death Eaters Apparated. ,snip> Carol responds: He says, "The Ministry has fallen. Scrimgeour is dead. They are coming" (DH am. ed. 159). They *are* coming. So he's sending it just as the DEs are on their way. as the people around HRH run in all directions and start Disapparating, Harry sees cloaked and masked figures in the crowd. It looks to me as if the Patronus was just slightly faster than the Apparation of the DEs. If that's the case, a Patronus is virtually instantaneous (and a Patronus disappears so it's undetectable and it's "reliable"--apparently, it can't go to the wrong recipient. (I don't think that Tonks specified Hagrid; she just intended her message to be sent to an Order member, and Snape qualified.) Carol earlier: > > As for interactive communication, I imagine that it's like a phone conversation. You respond with your own Patronus message. > > zgirnius: > How well this works, depends on whether or not there is a delay. Carol responds: Evidently there isn't, given the Kingsley example. Carol earlier: > > As for Snape's ability to fly, obviously JKR didn't want to give that information away in OoP, but I can't see him flying all the way to London > > zgirnius: > My susggestion is that he flew from the nearest window to the gate, and then Apparated. Carol: It's possible, assuming that the windows are open (they weren't in DH--he had to go through it) and that most windows are big enough for a man to fly out of. And he's dealing with an urgent matter. (Maybe he used his ability to fly, if he had it at that time, to search the forest?) In any case, there wouldn't be any windows in his dungeon office, which is underground, and there's the risk of being seen, even at night. Why not use a Patronus, which is foolproof? > > > Carol: > > Only we don't see any other such means, do we? > > zgirnius: > Well, we do see plenty of Order members Apparate. Carol: But they don't use Apparition as a form of communication. It's a form of transportation. If they need to be there in person, they Apparate. Otherwise, they use a Patronus. (Unless, like Sirius Black when he uses the Gryffindor fireplace in GoF, they don't have a wand. In OoP, he seems to have acquired one somehow (just as the DEs, who've been in Azkaban, somehow have wands again even though Ollivander hasn't yet disappeared) but uses the fireplace anyway. Why doesn't Sirius send Harry a Patronus? I guess he doesn't want the other Gryffindors to see it. Or he doesn't have a wand yet. Or JKR wanted him to nearly get caught by Umbridge in the fireplace. > zgirnius: > Exactly why I do not think it in any way indicates how Snape communicated. The statement is not informing Harry or us about the details of how Snape communicated, or the various ways in which other Order members might do so. It is a very gentle reminder to Harry that going to an Order member, not Umbridge's Floo, was a more reliable means of communicating. Much nicer than saying "WHY DID YOU NOT GO TO SNAPE?!" Carol: Well, true. But it also *suggests* that Snape used that same reliable form of communication. If Harry had gone to Snape, he would have seen Snape cast his Patronus (or Snape would have had to find some other way to communicate with the Order to prove that Sirius was alive and safe. They couldn't have used Snape's fireplace, which was being monitored, to go to 12 GP together, and I doubt that Snape would have said, "Let me fly/walk/run to the gates and Disapparate, Potter, and find out for you." The Patronus would have been fast and foolproof, and would have conveniently shown Harry where Snape's loyalties lie if Harry had eyes to see, but, of course, we wouldn't have had the MoM fiasco and the whole Snape storyline, which depends on ambiguity, would have been ruined. zgirnius: > I do not believe Snape would have wanted Sirius to see his Patronus. He might as well have just showed it to Harry (which apparently he does not wish to do, since in HBP he teaches some other way to deal with Dementors. Carol: That's possible. But, as I said earlier, Sirius probably would not have interpreted it correctly. Young Severus called Lily a Mudblood, their friendship ended, and Snape later joined the Death Eaters. Would Sirius believe that Snape, whom he hates and thinks is still loyal to Voldemort, was in love with Lily, James Potter's wife, who had died fourteen years earlier? I don't think Sirius has even the remotest understanding of snape or the remotest desire to understand him, and he's not going to understand the significance of the doe Patronus. Nor would he even be thinking about the form of the Patronus in a message or messages involving Harry and Voldemort. In DH, however, I agree that he doesn't want *Harry* to see his Patronus. But Harry has a Stag Patronus, and he would certainly wonder why Snape's Patronus so closely matches his own. It's important to Snape for personal reasons, and for his own safety (as Portrait!DD notes in DH) that Harry not know that Snape is helping him. (Sirius wouldn't believe it; he thinks that Snape will use the Occlumency lessons to hurt Harry.) zgirnius quotes: > > jenny: How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order? > > J.K. Rowling: He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance. Carol responds: Yes, I'm familiar with this "explanation." But it's not consistent with canon. Snape seems to have used the Patronus to communicate at the end of OoP. He seems to have Apparated and visited 12 GP in person during holidays, and he would not have needed to communicate to the Order directly when both he and DD were at Hogwarts. But I don't trust JKR's explanations, for example, why Harry can't see Thestrals at the end of GoF even though he's watched Cedric die. Two points. First, JKR forgets things. I can find any number of inconsistencies in the books, and they don't all deal with numbers. And, second, JKR's characters act as the plot requires them to act, as do the spells they use. If the spells or actions are inconsistent from book to book (or Weasley-Is-Our-King Ron has to overcome the same fear twice) it's because the plot of the new book has different requirements than the plot of the book it contradicts. Carol, who doesn't trust JKR's interviews because they are off-the cuff responses and because JKR doesn't check her own "fictional facts" From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 24 22:03:01 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:03:01 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks In-Reply-To: <001d01c8a635$6d449db0$30ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182642 Carol earlier: > > They don't take Astronomy for five years. The core curriculum, required for all first- and second-years, is Potions, Transfiguration, Herbology, Charms (classes taught, perhaps coincidentally, perhaps not, by the Four Heads of Houses), Defense Against the Dark Arts, and History of Magic. Jerri responded: > It's true that Astronomy class isn't mentioned often, but there are reasons I think that they take Astronomy for their first 5 years at Hogwarts: > > 1. In SS, page 133, when describing their classes it says: (Page > numbers from U.S. hardback editions) > > "They had to study the night skies through their telescopes every > Wednesday at midnight." > > (True, it doesn't call the class Astronomy, but what else would it be?) Carol responds: Good point, and the Lexicon agrees with you that Astronomy began in first year. However, as there's no textbook assigned for Astronomy for *any* year, in contrast to the other classes (for which they either use the same books they bought during first year or buy a new one because it's a new course or a new teacher or a highter level), so that apparent Astronomy reference could be a Flint. There's no reference to Astronomy in CoS, which does refer to all the classes I listed as the core curriculum. Jerri: > 3. In PoA, page 318, they all have an Astronomy exam: > > "Then came Astronomy at midnight, up on the tallest tower; ..." > > (And Astronomy wasn't listed as a "new" class, so I again assume that it had been a consistant part of their class work from the beginning, although not often mentioned.) Carol: So we know for sure that they were taking it in third year, but aside from the brief reference you quoted above and the one to the Astronomy Tower, which they know how to find (as it's the tallest tower in Hogwarts, though, that wouldn't be hard), there's no solid indication that they took it in the first and second year. We also know that they signed up for new classes over Easter break during second year, with Harry choosing the same classes as Ron. Percy mentions Divination, Muggle Studies, and CoMC. Arithmancy and Ancient Runes are also mentioned. But the number of new classes they're required to take is not specified, and Hermione signs up for "everything (CoS Am. ed. 252). In PoA, Hermione says, "Ooh, good. We're starting some new subjects today," and Ron points out the conflicts on her schedule (Divination, Muggle Studies, and Arithmancy all at the same time, PoA Am. ed. 97-98). They head off to Divination and then to CoMC, which we know are new classes because Percy mentioned them in CoS, and, of course, Harry has figured out by now why Hagrid sent him "the Monster Book of Monsters" as a birthday present. We're told that they have a hard time finding the way to North Tower, and obviously they've never been in Trelawney's classroom or even seen her before. But Astronomy, which is apparently taught at night (or at least, the exam occurs at night), has never been shown as an actual part of their schedules. We never see them taking it or studying for it until the Astronomy essays in OWL year (the confusion over Jupiter's moons). Nor does this night-time class seem to interfere with their sleep or studying. There's no reference to having to go to Astronomy after detention or Quidditch practice, either. Even so, since they have an Astronomy exam in PoA and an Astronomy OWL in OoP, they must have been taking it since at least third year. As for not being mentioned as a new class, their first Astronomy lesson in PoA (whether it's a new class or an old one) is not mentioned at all in PoA. Nor is Astronomy shown, like all the other brand-new subjects (DADA, Charms, Potions, Transfiguration, herbology, and History of Magic) in SS/PS. Jerri: > I feel pretty sure that there were other occasional references to Astronomy throughout the books, for example, when they did the Astrology portion of Divination they said or thought something about what they had learned in Astronomy. Carol responds: It would be helpful if you can find that quote, along with the year when it takes place. For example, if the remark is made in GoF or OoP, it won't prove anything because we know that they were taking Astronomy in third year. The question is whether it's a new class or part of the core curriculum that all students take from first through fifth years. If, OTOH, the remark is made early in PoA, especially in the first month or two of the first term, it would be solid evidence that, despite the lack of references (we never see them in class and no book is mentioned), they must have been taking it, as you believe, since first year. Till then, I'll hold to my own view that it was one of the new classes in third year though I certainly see your position and you could well be right.) BTW. the Lexicon has an interesting comment with regard to the list of books that first-years are required to buy, including FB and "Magical Theory" and the books that are used every year, such as "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi": "some of these books make up what might be considered to be a standard library for any witch or wizard." I think that comment answers your question regarding FB. As I said in my earlier post, I think that it and FB are standard reference works that the students use in writing their essays or else they provide background knowledge that they won't necessarily acquire in their lessons. Oddly, "One thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi," which must surely be the Herbology text, seems to be consulted as least as often for Potions as for Herbology, and the actual Potions book, "Magical Drafts and Potions," is never referred to at all after it appears on the booklist. Whether JKR is as confused as Harry, who thinks that he can find a reference to Bezoars in "One Thousand Magical Herbs and Fungi," or whether it's because Snape never uses the book to teach and always puts the potions directions on the board, I don't know. Anyway, Astronomy class, like the original Potions book and the usually forgotten Lestrange brother, Rabastan, seems to spring to JKR's mind only occasionally. Carol, who thinks that JKR should have shown an actual Astronomy lesson, if only to introduce the teacher and give Harry a genuinely useful subject to study > > So, I hold by my belief that the Hogwarts core curriculum for the > first 5 years included Astronomy. > > Jerri > From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu Apr 24 23:04:37 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 23:04:37 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182643 > Carol: > There is, however, canon to show that Phineas Nigellus can leave DD's > office and go to his portrait in 12 GP and he does so in OoP itself. > And there's canon in both HBP (quotes on request) and DH (quotes not > necessary, I hope!) to show that Phineas Nigellus is, so to speak, a > Snape fan and would happily run errands for him. But I don't think > that's what DD is referring to since the Order in general don't seem > to use that method. Pippin: Dumbledore uses the portrait to communicate with Sirius in OOP, to tell him that he's about to have unexpected company. It's clearly something that happens often: "I've got another message," says Dumbledore. I see no reason therefore that Snape, not wishing to use his patronus to communicate with GP, wouldn't be able to use the portrait, or why Dumbledore couldn't have had that in mind: "more reliable methods of communicating" definitely implies there is more than one. Clearly JKR wanted to plant a hint that Snape's patronus would be important, but one need not assume that Dumbledore did too. I am curious about why Snape thought it was important for Sirius to stay behind, given that the update for Dumbledore could have been left with a portrait or a patronus. But my guess is that Snape thought the message would be in safer hands if it was entrusted to a human rather than to a magical servant. If so, he was quite right. Pippin From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Fri Apr 25 01:11:01 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 01:11:01 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182644 I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning rather than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, a symbol of power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an electronic one. Rowlings has been quoted here as saying that magic negates electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of a power that is negated by magic! Am I reading this correctly? Barry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 03:42:19 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 03:42:19 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182645 Barry wrote: > > I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning rather than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, a symbol of power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an electronic one. Rowlings has been quoted here as saying that magic negates electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of a power that is negated by magic! Am I reading this correctly? > Carol responds: Since this is the second time you've asked and no one else has answered you, I'll just say quickly that JKR said in some early interview or other (you can find the quotes through Leaky or the Lexicon) that the shape of the scar is not the most important thing about it. (We know what *that* meant now!) And while Rowling (no "s"), or JKR as we call her here, did say something about electrical and electronic devices not working at Hogwarts because there's too much magic, I think she was primarily finding a way to keep students from having computers and so forth, so they use quills for writing, candles for lighting, candles for heat, etc.--all very gothic and medieval, to go along with the cloaks and robes (and broomsticks). I don't think that the lightning-bolt shape of Harry's scar has anything to do with lightning, any more than it represents an Eihwaz rune 9protection) as I used to think. Sure, he was struck by an evil spell, but Avada Kedavra doesn't leave a mark, so probably (this is just my own view) the jagged cut was caused by the Killing Curse bursting *out* of Harry's forehead (leaving a nice opening for the soul bit to enter through). Of course, on a more mundane level, a jagged scar that resembles a lightning bolt is more distinctive than "smudge" or a circle, and she wanted Harry to be distinctive, all eyes going immediately to his forehead when people first see or meet him. Carol, hoping that you won't find her answer *too* disappointing From k12listmomma at comcast.net Fri Apr 25 04:43:08 2008 From: k12listmomma at comcast.net (k12listmomma) Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:43:08 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The scar References: Message-ID: <000d01c8a68e$dd888e20$6401a8c0@homemain> No: HPFGUIDX 182646 Shelley: Like Carol, I think JKR made the scar lightning shaped to be special, unique. As pointed out, a mere smudge or even normal shaped scar would not have drawn as much attention to it. She could have made it some other shape, but maybe lightning was the simpliest, and easiest shape that could be recognized by anyone without having to spend many words descibing it. Authors often use tricks like this- giving reference to a well known object, rather than to have to take a long time describing that object themselves. Many sci-fi authors will call a futuristic vehicle a "car" or "rocket", since that conjures familiar images in the reader's minds. A smudge would have been quite boring, yet the words lightening shape instantly produces a clear image for the reader, accomplishing the task of having successfully described the scar. I don't think lightening has any further significance at all, or any connection to electricity. > Barry wrote: >> I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning rather > than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, a symbol of > power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an electronic one. > Rowlings has been quoted here as saying that magic negates > electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of a power that is negated > by magic! Am I reading this correctly? > >> > Carol responds: > I don't think that the lightning-bolt shape of Harry's scar has > anything to do with lightning, any more than it represents an Eihwaz > rune 9protection) as I used to think. Sure, he was struck by an evil > spell, but Avada Kedavra doesn't leave a mark, so probably (this is > just my own view) the jagged cut was caused by the Killing Curse > bursting *out* of Harry's forehead (leaving a nice opening for the > soul bit to enter through). > > Of course, on a more mundane level, a jagged scar that resembles a > lightning bolt is more distinctive than "smudge" or a circle, and she > wanted Harry to be distinctive, all eyes going immediately to his > forehead when people first see or meet him. > > Carol, hoping that you won't find her answer *too* disappointing From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 05:09:42 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 05:09:42 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182647 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Jerri: > > I feel pretty sure that there were other occasional references to > > Astronomy throughout the books, for example, when they did the > > Astrology portion of Divination they said or thought something > > about what they had learned in Astronomy. > Carol responds: > It would be helpful if you can find that quote, along with the year > when it takes place. I don't remember this quote, although logically it has to be in GoF, because they studied planetary divination in their 4th year. However, I remember another one, which may support Jerri's side, even if indirectly :-). It's in PoA, when Harry was living in The Leaky Cauldron. He wanted to buy a moving model of the galaxy, and he thought that, if he did, he would "never had to take another Astronomy lesson" (p.50 Am.ed.). Wouldn't it mean that Harry already had Astronomy lessons? zanooda From bboyminn at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 08:02:43 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 08:02:43 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182648 --- "Barry" wrote: > > I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning > rather than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, > a symbol of power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an > electronic one. Rowling has been quoted here as saying that > magic negates electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of > a power that is negated by magic! Am I reading this correctly? > > Barry > bboyminn: I think you are reading way to much into it, and are also trying to merge unrelated aspects of the story. The scar is lightening shaped because it is from a break or cut in the skin which leaves a jagged gash that resembles a 'lightening' shape rather that a 'smudge' you might expect from an abrasion or scrap. I also agree with Carol that the gash on Harry's head most likely comes from something bursting out rather than the standard impact of the Avada Kadavra curse which, again as Carol points out, usually doesn't leave a mark. By coincidence, the scar resembles two Nordic Runes. The first mentioned by Carol is - EIHWAZ or EOH - This is another rune of protection. The other is - SIGEL, SIGIL, SOWELU or SYGEL - SIGEL is a rune of victory, health, and success. Expanded explanations and actual symbols can be found here - http://hem.passagen.se/vsen/public_html/runes.htm I think it is incidental that Harry scar also has a rune shape. I think JKR just wanted it to be a cut, and have an interesting shape. Steve/bboyminn From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Fri Apr 25 14:33:56 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 09:33:56 -0500 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks References: <1209126704.5123.36029.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000201c8a6e1$7c4c3280$5cae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182649 zanooda: > I don't remember this quote, although logically it has to be in GoF, > because they studied planetary divination in their 4th year. > However, > I remember another one, which may support Jerri's side, even if > indirectly :-). It's in PoA, when Harry was living in The Leaky > Cauldron. He wanted to buy a moving model of the galaxy, and he > thought that, if he did, he would "never had to take another > Astronomy > lesson" (p.50 Am.ed.). Wouldn't it mean that Harry already had > Astronomy lessons? > > Many thanks. I knew that there were at least a few references to Harry taking Astronomy. And this being at the beginning of PoA, would seem to imply that he had taken those lessons sometime in the first two years. And the mention of the classes at midnight every Wednesday in the first book, seems to make it a regularly scheduled class. I tend to think that it is one of those things that JKR intended to have Harry do because it seemed to be a wizarding sort of class, and also established the need for an Astronomy tower, but as until the practical exam in OoP nothing important happened during an Astronomy class it didn't get much mention. There are lots of things that happen to HRH and that they do that don't get mentioned in the books. From the evidence of the books, he takes very few baths and showers, for example! What I find frustrating in the Harry Potter books in retrospect, as I read over them now that we know the ending and consider the series as a whole, is that it is so difficult to discern which things were not mentioned or explained early as it would give too much away. Which things weren't mentioned or explained because it didn't seem important to the plot (like Harry's hygiene habits!), and which things because JKR hadn't thought the situation out completely. [There are many of these. I had a long list made out before DH with all the loose ends I expected to see tied up in the final book, and almost all of them were left hanging for one reason or another.] Take the Astronomy. Carol made some excellent points. If HRH were taking an Astronomy class at midnight or thereabouts one night a week, surely it would have interfered with a detention or late night homework or running around under the invisibility cloak or at least had them sleepy the next day. It appears to me that she intended them to be taking Astronomy, scheduled the classes for late at night so it wouldn't interfere with the day time schedule (and so that the stars would be out), then never gave it another thought till she needed it for a plot point. Also, what about all that cloudy, rainy, stormy weather in Scotland? I suppose that could be used to explain why we don't see Astronomy class interfere with other night time activities, and why the classes had to extend over 5 full years, it had to be canceled so often because of the weather! ;-) Jerri From willsonkmom at msn.com Fri Apr 25 17:54:45 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 17:54:45 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182650 Pippin: > I am curious about why Snape thought it was important for Sirius to stay > behind, given that the update for Dumbledore could have been left with a > portrait or a patronus. But my guess is that Snape thought the message > would be in safer hands if it was entrusted to a human rather than to a > magical servant. If so, he was quite right. Potioncat: I think he wanted to keep Black out of the fray. The last thing they needed was for LV to capture him. Just my two cents, but I also think the Order was expecting DD, not that Snape was the only one who knew DD was coming. That doesn't mean that Snape and DD didn't have some other way of communicating before. And Phinneas's portrait is a good possibility. Phinneas can leave DD's office to go to other paintings in the castle. Snape wouldn't have had to sneak into the Headmaster's office. Which reminds me now, how much we discussed what DD would have been willing to do to Kreacher to make him talk. After what we learned in DH, I'd say he'd be be williing to do a great deal. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 18:01:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:01:24 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks In-Reply-To: <000201c8a6e1$7c4c3280$5cae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182651 Jerri: Carol made some excellent points. If HRH were taking an Astronomy class at midnight or thereabouts one night a week, surely it would have interfered with a detention or late night homework or running around under the invisibility cloak or at least had them sleepy the next day. It appears to me that she intended them to be taking Astronomy, scheduled the classes for late at night so it wouldn't interfere with the day time schedule (and so that the stars would be out), then never gave it another thought till she needed it for a plot point. Carol: Thanks. Zanooda's quote pretty conclusively proves that you're right--they've been taking Astronomy all along even though it's hardly ever mentioned and there's no textbook--but I agree completely that Astronomy only comes into the plot when JKR needs it and that it would have disrupted their sleep schedule, among other things. Why not make it one of the classes added during third year, at least, since it plays no role in the first two books? And why not at least mention having to stay up late on Wednesday nights? And why not a more reasonable hour than midnight? (I'm tempted to look for a reference to staying up or studying in the common room on a Wednesday night that conflicts with this idea, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.) It just occurred to me that students taking a midnight class would be violating curfew. First-years wandering the corridors at midnight, or at one o'clock when the class was over? And, of course, there would have to be at least five separate classes, one per year for first through fifth years, plus two more if there were any sixth- and seventh-year NEWT Astronomy students. And students from all four Houses would have to take the classes together or they couldn't fit into the schedule. Clearly, it's one of those details that JKR didn't really think about. I think that the only reason JKR put Astronomy in the HP books at all is so that she could have HRH witness Umbridge trying to evict Hagrid during the Astronomy OWL and so that Dumbledore's body could fall off the Astronomy Tower (which, besides being much more dramatic than falling to the floor, prevents Greyback from ravaging DD's body and Snape or Draco from snatching up DD's wand). Carol, pretty sure that JKR was too concerned with the various plots and subplots to consider the problems posed by including Astronomy in the curriculum Note to the List Elves: This is my second attempt to post this message. If it posts twice, please feel free to delete the duplicate. From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 18:21:52 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:21:52 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182652 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Barry" wrote: > I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning rather than > a smudge. Hi Barry! Shelley, Carol and Steve are all right - the shape of the scar doesn't mean much. Maybe you remember that web chat with JKR that happened at the end of last July, soon after the 7th book release? There was a question about the scar, and there have to be the transcript in Leaky archives, although I don't have the time to look for it at the moment. However, I printed the transcript out back then, so it goes like this: Koen Van Der Voort: Why is the scar on harrys forehead lightning shaped? JKR: To be honest, because it's a cool shape. I couldn't have my hero sport a doughnut-shaped scar. Hope this helps, zanooda From zanooda2 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 18:47:41 2008 From: zanooda2 at yahoo.com (zanooda2) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 18:47:41 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts classes and textbooks In-Reply-To: <000201c8a6e1$7c4c3280$5cae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182653 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri/Dan Chase" wrote: > Take the Astronomy. Carol made some excellent points. If HRH were > taking an Astronomy class at midnight or thereabouts one night a > week, surely it would have interfered with a detention or late > night homework or running around under the invisibility cloak > or at least had them sleepy the next day. zanooda: I agree with you that this is one of the books' inconsistencies :-). However, I think that maybe you are mistaken, and Astronomy is not a class scheduled to take place regularly on the tower every Wednesday at midnight. I mean, for how long does one need to stare at the sky :-)? There have to be a theoretical part as well, which doesn't require a telescope, a tower or a night sky. The students can read a textbook and study charts, can't they? What I mean to say is that maybe there were a few classes at night, but not all of them. The rest of the classes are regular classes in a classroom, maybe once a week (although I don't understand why they are never shown :-). The midnight classes were mentioned only once, rather early in PS/SS, iirc. Maybe there were a few of those at the beginning of the first year, just to show the kids where every star and planet is situated and familiarize them with the night sky, but later on they just studied by the book. What do you think? Just an idea ... :-). From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 19:47:01 2008 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:47:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182654 Beatrice: Okay, I have to add my two cents here. While I was waiting to DH to be published I had many of the concerns that Carol voices about Harry's talent. It seemed to me that Harry was too "average" to defeat LV, but I have had cause to reconsider after reading the fine arguments of Carol and Mike. > Carol earlier: > > > Well, there's that Patronus, the one spell he's better at than > Hermione, but he had lots of help and the advantage of training on a > Boggart!Dementor. whatever Harry's natural gift for casting this > spell, no one else has the advantage of special training at age > thirteen from a competent DADA teacher (a rare commoditiy at Hogwarts > in any case), and no one else has the advantage of a Dementor Boggart > to practice on. It's one thing to cast the spell in the DA > headquarters, where it's just fun; it's another to be able to cast it > against a real Dementor. Harry had the opportunity to overcome his > fear of a fake Dementor before facing a real one. Beatrice: 1st: Fear of a fake Dementor? It seemed to me that even the boggart was able to produce the same effect as a real dementor as evidenced by Harry's experience in Lupin's office - he hears his mother's death, passes out and has to be revived with chocolate. It also seems to me that Lupin understands that the boggart will do more than simply take the shape of a Dementor as he is ready with chocolate on hand. Lots of help? Well, sure what student doesn't have lots of help? (Note also that in Dumbledore's obit, Dodge notes that in school Dumbledore developes a correspondence with many notable wizards of in his time which seems to indicate to me that DD was seeking outside help and knowledge in areas that he was interested in, isn't that remarkably similar to what Harry is doing?) Doesn't Harry's desire tell us something about his ability? Just because the spell doesn't come easy to him or he needs tutoring doesn't diminish his accomplishment. Even Hermione, who seems to master so many spells with ease, has the benefit of dedicated study and practice...It seems to me that Harry and Hermione learn in different ways Hermione learns from reading, but Harry learns from "hands on experience" which Lupin capitalizes on in his lessons and perhaps why Harry is so great at Quidditch and the many confrontations he finds himself in. He has great reflexes and powers of observation. Even then, he > couldn't do it at thirteen until he saw "James" (really his future > self) casting one--and he was not actually facing even one Dementor at the time. Beatrice: You are right he wasn't facing even one Dementor. He was facing a hundred Dementors and his life, the life of his best friends and the life of the only "family" member he had ever known and just met was in terrible danger and yet he was able to find a "happy" moment even in his life filled with unhappiness. And here is ONE of the things that makes Harry extraordinary: despite the tragic loss of his parents; his miserable, abusive childhood; the horrors he has witnessed in the WWW; and the way he is objectified by the majority of the WWW he is still able to find happiness and to hold on to it in moments of utter despair. Carol: > No one else has those advantages (Lupin, a Dementor Boggart) or > circumstances that require them to learn the spell at such an early > age (Dementors at Hogwarts, which affect Harry more than anyone else), > not to mention a Time-Turner. > > Would he have learned to cast a Patronus at thirteen if Dementors had > not come to Hogwarts that year? Probably not. there would have been no > incentive. Would any other DADA teacher we've seen have given him > private lessons? Beatrice: Well these are what we call "conditions of possibility," but Harry capitalizes on just the right opportunities, perhaps this is luck (or more likely issues of plot - I mean really would it be more believable for Harry to need to develop a defense against Dementors or to discover the Patronus spell on a forray in the library and say "hmmm..this looks interesting I think that I will learn this one just for ha ha's." (although this might work for Hermione). > > It's all circumstance, coincidence, luck. Beatrice: A point which Harry conceeds, but plenty of wizards, talented, and super-talented (Moody, DD, Lupin, Sirius, James, Lily, Snape, Fred, etc, etc, etc) don't survive on their talent - because perhaps one needs more than talent. > Carol: But I think there are perfectly good reasons why > Harry, unlike most other third years, can cast a corporeal Patronus. > And we find that many fifth years, and even a fourth year, Colin > Creevey, can master the spell itself. It's just the part about facing > an actual Dementor that they don't have to deal with (until the battle > of Hgwarts, when they're in either their sixth or seventh year). Okay - but they master it under Harry's instruction, with NO dementor or even a fake Dementor present (which makes it much less impressive) AND in DH they face the Dementors together - not own their own. And not with Harry's past which Lupin tells us in PoA is why he reacts so strongly to the dementors. > Carol: Harry and his skills or powers, which I maintain are not > for the most part that much greater than those of his fellow students > except in that he's had experiences they haven't had and the need to > learn spells that they haven't yet been taught. Beatrice: Can one be considered brilliant or talented if they are untried or unschooled? Potential and raw ability can only take one so far. So a lot of Harry's skills and talents are brought to the surface by others (teachers, friends, enemies). Harry is still the one who faces down the dangers when for the most part his friends and teachers are either not present or standing off to the sidelines. Isn't there a talent in Harry's ability to succeed where other fail even if we can say part of it is luck? And is it really luck? Or is it Harry's greatest asset, the one that we all (including myself) underestimate: love. Harry's love of other helps him to save them, sacrifice himself, learn under extraordinary circumstances, understand what others do not, perform where other freeze, etc. Let's compare Harry with his "betters" for a second. Hermione: she learns at an incredible rate, has great logic, masters advanced spells, and has an incredible capacity to remember and apply knowledge. True, sometimes Harry needs more practice and help mastering things (except perhaps DADA), but Harry is less interested in academics and Harry masters quickly the one (one of several things actually, but I can't be here all day) of the things that stumps Hermione: flying a broom and understanding nuances of quidditch. Also, Hermione has a great legal mind in her ability to apply knowledge (note her discussion with Scrimgour in DH), but Harry's ability to think beyond the rules and boundries opens all sorts of opportunities for the trio so that even Hermione is led by him. Now we could compare Harry to every one but I wanted to point out just one simlarity between Harry and Dumbledore. Dumbledore sacrifices himself to save Harry and Harry sacrifices himself freely to save everyone else. If Harry's sacrifice isn't huge I don't know what is. Perhaps one doesn't need talent, when ultimately one is so giving and loving as to give up his own life for the whole world... > SS/PS: > His mother's love stopped Quirrell!mort, Quirell died when LV left his > body and LV returned to Vapor form, and DD (who had made sure that > Harry had his Invisibility Cloak and knew how the mirror worked) came > to his rescue. Harry's contribution, aside from catching the key in > the Charms challenge, was courage, determination, and a pure heart > that kept him from wanting the stone for himself. But the skill and > knowledge, aside from the chess game that Ron won, was all Hermione's. Beatrice: Okay true - but would Ron and Hermione even dare to follow Quirrell without Harry? Would they even know what was happening at Hogwarts if they all hadn't worked together? Isn't this part of the difference between LV and the "good" wizards LV accomplishes a lot, but he never learns to work with anyone else. LV never sees anyone's value. But Harry does! Isn't this the mark of a talented leader, one who knows how and where and when to utilize the strengths of others? And yes his mother's love saves him, but it is Harry who sees that power and capitalizes on it even if he doesn't quite understand it at the time. Again, Harry although in terrible pain, chooses to hold onto Quirrell thinking that he may die, just to keep the stone out of LV's hands. > > CoS: > I'm sure you've read my recent posts, but I'll reiterate, leaving out > my argument that DD provided the protections. Harry spoke Parseltongue > (thanks to LV) and could consequently open the Chamber. Fawkes blinded > the Basilisk, provided the Sorting from which Harry could pull the > Sword of Gryffindor, healed Harry's wounds, and carried him to safety. > Harry used the Basilisk fang to destroy the diary, not knowing that it > was a Horcrux, which, in turn, restored Ginny's soul to her body. What > did Harry contribute? Quite a bit, but none of it (except > Parseltongue) depended on Harry's skill and power and knowledge. Beatrice: NONE of it? Harry finds the Chamber, which Dumbledore could not. And I know, I know DD doesn't speak parseltongue. But DD doesn't try to work with Harry to find the entrance making me think that DD doesn't make the connection between this ability and the entrance to the chamber or even that it is a basilisk. And I disagree that DD send Fawkes to Harry, I think that Harry calls Fawkes to him by showing DD such loyalty - DD says so himself. Okay so Harry destroys the Diaray - mere coincidence you argue. WHAT?!? a twelve year old who has just slew a monster with a sword (a sword that he has never wielded) and now with a giant tooth sticking out of an open wound in his arm and poison coursing through his body...he doesn't simply moan in his last moments of pain - he plucks out the tooth from his own bloody arm (his right arm by the way - and his dominant hand) and uses it as the only weapon at hand (BTW: the sword would have worked here too as it already slew the basilisk). Harry is a warrior, through and through and he doesn't let his own pain get in the way of protecting someone else (Ginny). Sure some people are more talented - but often more talented wizards are bested by their own fears and pain. Carol: > GoF: > The spells he masters, under Hermione's direction, are ordinary DADA > spells that he should have learned under a competent teacher. Beatrice: Is it mastering that is difficult or knowing what spell to use when or being able to use things under pressure. Hermione who is so talented freezes when confronted with the devil's snare in SS and at other times, but Harry never freezes up. Snip: Carol: > So, yes. He wins the TWT, more or less, having used Quidditch skills > to get past the dragon, gillyweed to survive the Second Task (true, he > got past "zee grindylows" and Fleur didn't) and the ordinary DADA > spells that Fake!Moody should have taught the whole class to get past > the Acromantula and the Skrewt (the Sphinx only asked a Riddle and > Fake!Moody had cleared most of the obstacles out of Harry's way), but > the confrontation against Voldemort was won with Expelliarmus--and > only because Harry's wand was the brother wand of Voldemort's. Had the > echoes not come out of the wand and allowed him to escape, neither > courage nor quick thinking would have helped him. Snip: Nor would Harry have survived if it > hadn't been for the brother wands. He can resist an Imperius Curse, > true, but he can't fight a Crucio. As for AK, no one can survive > that--unless they're protected by fate, luck, their mother's > self-sacrifice, and a drop of blood that they happen to share with > Voldemort. (Voldie's mistakes always help Harry without Harry needing > any special powers other than the ones residing in the scar or his own > wand.) Beatrice: Isn't love Harry's special power? Or is it only a power if one can manifest it and use it as a weapon? Is it not "really" a win for a sports team if the other team makes a mistake and the winning team capitalizes on it? Doesn't it take some talent to see an opening, an opportunity and to take it? What about great courage? What does it take for a 14 year old to stand up and duel with a fully grown wizard, let alone the wizard who killed your parents and is so feared that almost no one will even utter his name? And okay he can't fight a Crucio - but who can? - but he CAN withstand the pain, he can hold him self tall and proud instead of writhing on the ground and groveling for mercy. > > OoP: > Harry does better than the other DA members (whose DA lessons haven't > adequately prepared them to deal with DEs, much less LV himself) > against the DEs, but he's ready to hand the Prophecy Orb to Lucius > Malfoy when the Order members arrive. Beatrice: To hand over the orb to save his friends! To hand over some kind of knowledge to LV about himself to leave himself vulnerable to help others. Who does this? Truly? Who? Carol: And he manages an inept Crucio > against Bellatrix but doesn't get much of a chance to duel with her > because LV and DD arrive. Harry and Bellatrix are both pinned to the > wall by parts of the Fountain of Magical Brethren, taking no part in > the battle between the superwizards. LV possesses Harry and is > defeated, not by Harry's skill or magical power, in the sense of > ability to cast powerful spells, but by "the power that the Dark Lord > knows not," love. Beatrice: Okay, but this time it is Harry's love, not his mother's love that saves him. Sure Lily's love saves Harry, but Harry's love ends up saving the world. Whose else's love is this powerful? Who else has the courage to do this? > > HBP: > Harry doesn't fight, LV, only his supposed lieutenant, Snape, and is > trounced. Beatrice: This is certainly evidence that Harry isn't talented. One of the patterns I noticed in this series is that whenever Harry is angry he fails to achieve his goal. (Trying to capture Snape in HBP, chasing after Bellatrix in OotP, going after Sirius in PoA, etc.) Harry is successful when he is resolved to do what has to be done, even if it means sacrificing himself, but more importantly when he acts out of necessity not out of anger he usually wins. Perhaps because anger clouds his ability to see (or to seek if you will). When he is angry he cannot see all of the aspects of the game, the players, their goals, their strageties, etc. This seems to me to be a rather interesting talent and one that few other wizards seem to demonstrate, except perhaps DD. > > DH: > Harry defeats LV, with the help of Hermione, Ron, Snape, and the > participants in the Battle of Hogwarts, not to mention Dobby, > Griphook, Ollivander, Mr. Lovegood, and even Vincent Crabbe, Snip Beatrice: A fair point. But you forgot to mention that LV doesn't fight his battles without help. He uses people, sends them on tasks, willingly sacrifices them as if they are insects in his war against the WWW. Dumbledore, too, is aided by other people in the war. Is Harry only exceptional if he does everything himself? If having help diminishes Harry, what does it do for LV and DD? Harry could have gone to the CoS and destroyed the horcrux, but he was busy working on other things - pretty important things too and really did we need to see him go down there again? Okay, so Crabbe destroys the diadem, but this isn't a display of talented magic, Crabbe is such a dolt that he offs himself in the process, because he knew only the spell, but not how to master it. True the other characters play their roles, but none of them have the capacity that Harry does not one has the ability to vanquish LV. Snape contributes a lot, but he is like a bug on LV's gigantic windshield. Mr. Lovegood provides a story - that is like saying that Professor Binns is really responsible for Harry's defeat of the Basilisk because he tells the trio (et al) about the rumours of the CoS. I could go on and on but "no man is an island..." > > Carol: > Exactly! That's my whole point. Harry's power and his talent are beside the point. > > Harry doesn't defeat Voldemort because he's better at DADA than anyone > else (thanks to special circumstances like the TWT). He's just an > ordinary Wizard kid when it comes to school subjects, which he only > studies when he has to, not a genius or a prodigy at anything except > Quidditch. > What helps Harry against Voldemort is first, the powers that LV > inadvertenly gave him when he "marked him as his equal"-- Parseltongue > and the scar connection--and second, setting aside luck and help from > more talented friends, as Snape puts it, "the power that the Dark Lord > knows not," love. Beatrice: These are powerful contributions no doubt, but I think that you underestimate the importance of love here or at least the magic of it as the texts suggest. You also forget Harry's courage which is his and his alone - I don't think that LV has much courage frankly just over confidence, so he doesn't get it from him; and his friends while courageous in their own rights have nothing on Harry. Harry's agility and speed - thanks to his quidditch training and probably also to the Dursley's (ducking out of the way of Dudley, Vernon's and Petunia's fists and frying pans). His unique knowledge both of LV through DD and through his own experiences (growing up unloved in a muggle house, his scar - although his scar didn't help him realize that the cup was in Gringotts). Harry also has great strength of character which is why he can resist the imperius curse. > the main argument above, but what I meant (feel free to disagree) is > that the talents we're born with are not our own doing. I'm good at > spelling, for example, but to the extent that that's a natural > ability, as opposed to something I briefly worked at to win some > spelling championships at age thirteen, I don't see why I should > receive credit for that ability any more than Harry should receive > credit for being a Parselmouth (or Hermione for the good memory that > she's born with, as opposed to the hard work that she puts into her > homework, for which I do give her credit). Now, if Harry had managed > to master Occlumency after effort and fighting his own antipathy > toward Snape and his desire to have that dream, I'd give him credit, > lots of credit, for that. Beatrice: So because some of his talents come to him naturally, either by birth, by his mother's sacrifice, by LV AK spell, or by his friends that Harry doesn't deserve credit for using these "gifts" or he can only be considered special for what he achieves inspite of his natural talents or lack thereof? I guess I just have to go back to my earlier statement that plenty of people are born with abilities, but it requires more than just being given talents to develop them and use them well which for the most part Harry does. > From gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk Fri Apr 25 21:13:51 2008 From: gbannister10 at tiscali.co.uk (Geoff Bannister) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 21:13:51 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182655 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "Barry" wrote: > > > > I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning > > rather than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, > > a symbol of power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an > > electronic one. Rowling has been quoted here as saying that > > magic negates electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of > > a power that is negated by magic! Am I reading this correctly? > > > > Barry > > > > bboyminn: > > I think you are reading way to much into it, and are also trying > to merge unrelated aspects of the story. > > The scar is lightening shaped because it is from a break or > cut in the skin which leaves a jagged gash that resembles a > 'lightening' shape rather that a 'smudge' you might expect > from an abrasion or scrap. > > I also agree with Carol that the gash on Harry's head most > likely comes from something bursting out rather than the > standard impact of the Avada Kadavra curse which, again as > Carol points out, usually doesn't leave a mark. > > By coincidence, the scar resembles two Nordic Runes. The first > mentioned by Carol is - > > EIHWAZ or EOH - This is another rune of protection. > > The other is - > > SIGEL, SIGIL, SOWELU or SYGEL - SIGEL is a rune of victory, health, > and success. > > Expanded explanations and actual symbols can be found here - > > http://hem.passagen.se/vsen/public_html/runes.htm > > I think it is incidental that Harry scar also has a rune shape. > I think JKR just wanted it to be a cut, and have an interesting > shape. Geoff: The suggestion that the lightning shaped scar was connected with the eihwaz rune goes back a long way. I entered 'eihwaz' into the Yahoo search engine and got 116 hits, the earliest being post 76758 in August 2003. Some are less relevant than others but there have been some lengthy threads in the topic - which I have avoided because I have never thought that JKR was going along that road, but if you're interested, carry out the same search. Some start points to help are posts 81098 in 09/03 then 88103 and there are later ones beginning at or about 106597, in the 107200s, 110116 and most recently in the 121500 range in January 2005. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Fri Apr 25 22:00:15 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:00:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182656 -Carol earlier: > > > > Well, there's that Patronus, the one spell he's better at than Hermione, but he had lots of help and the advantage of training on a Boggart!Dementor. whatever Harry's natural gift for casting this spell, no one else has the advantage of special training at age thirteen from a competent DADA teacher and no one else has the advantage of a Dementor Boggart to practice on. It's one thing to cast the spell in the DA headquarters, where it's just fun; it's another to be able to cast it against a real Dementor. Harry had the opportunity to overcome his fear of a fake Dementor before facing a real one. > Beatrice responded: 1st: Fear of a fake Dementor? It seemed to me that even the boggart was able to produce the same effect as a real dementor as evidenced by Harry's experience in Lupin's office - he hears his mother's death, passes out and has to be revived with chocolate. Carol responds: Which is exactly my point. Harry's Boggart, shared by no other person we know of, allows him to practice (safely) on a highly effective substitute Dementor. No one else has that advantage. All they can do is cast learn to cast a Patronus in the RoR, where it's easy to find and concentrate on a happy memory. It's another matter altogether when a Dementor (whether real or a highly realistic Boggart substitute) is sucking out the very happiness that's required to conjure the Patronus. The Boggart, scary as it is, can't *really* suck out his happiness, much less his soul, any more than Boggart!Snape can really take points from Neville or a Boggart mummy can really do whatever mummies do. So Harry, under the supervision of Lupin (who, as you say, is armed with chocolate and who can send the Boggart back to its case with a flick of his wand) can practice dealing with what seems to be a real Dementor and overcoming that fear. And even he, of course, has trouble when he's faced for the first time with a real Dementor. Lucky that he sees his future self casting a corporeal Patronus, lucky that the future self is far away from the Dementors and not in danger, and lucky that he's had that Boggart!Dementor to practice on, an advantage that none of the other students have. (Hermione might well have been able to cast a corporeal Patronus at thirteen or fourteen had she practiced, but I don't think she could have used it against a Dementor because her Boggart does not provide a workable substitute. (Harrry says as much in OoP, wishing that they had a Boggart to practice on--as if the Boggart would stay in Dementor form and not try to shift as it does in PoA. And Parvati, IIRC, says something like, "Oh, no! That would be scary!" Of course it would, Parvati. That's the point.) Beatrice: > Lots of help? Well, sure what student doesn't have lots of help? Carol responds: Does any student other than Harry actually receive private lessons? (I suppose we could count Snape's putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention, ostensibly to help them pass their DADA OWLs this time around, but I can't recall any other examples.) And sure, Karkaroff and Madame Maxime did a fair bit of cheating (erm, pardon the word "fair"!) to help their students in the TWT, but no other Hogwarts student receives help resembling what Harry receives from Lupin. Harry could not have won the TWT without help from Fake!Moody, Death Eater or no. But maybe that's not what you're talking about here. I can't tell. > Beatrice: You are right he wasn't facing even one Dementor. He was > facing a hundred Dementors and his life, the life of his best friends and the life of the only "family" member he had ever known and just met was in terrible danger and yet he was able to find a "happy" > moment even in his life filled with unhappiness. And here is ONE of > the things that makes Harry extraordinary: despite the tragic loss of > his parents; his miserable, abusive childhood; the horrors he has > witnessed in the WWW; and the way he is objectified by the majority > of the WWW he is still able to find happiness and to hold on to it in > moments of utter despair. Carol responds: That's true, but I don't see how it relates to my point, which is that Time-Turned!Harry could not have cast the Patronus that saved Harry, Sirius, and Hermione if he hadn't had those lessons from Lupin using a Boggart!Dementor. I'm not in any way disparaging Harry's courage nor am I saying anything at all about his abusive childhood. However, as Lupin explains, the whole reason that Dementors affect Harry more than anyone else is that he has "horrors" in his past that they don't share. Those horrors (and his fear of fear, if Lupin is right) also give him the Dementor!Boggart. That Boggart gives him an advantage over those who fear more mundane things (spiders, for example) when it comes to learning to cast a Patronus against a Dementor, which is very different from making a pretty silver animal come out of your wand in the RoR. Beatrice: > Okay - but they master it under Harry's instruction, with NO dementor or even a fake Dementor present (which makes it much less impressive) AND in DH they face the Dementors together - not own their own. And not with Harry's past which Lupin tells us in PoA is why he reacts so strongly to the dementors. Carol responds: They learn how to cast a corporeal Patronus, but they don't experience the fear that Harry feels when he's learning to cast one. *They* don't relive their worst experiences (or require chocolate :-) ); they're just learning a cool new spell. Seamus, Neville, and Luna don't face real Dementors until DH, when most of them are in seventh year (Luna is in sixth), and even Hermione, now eighteen years old and a highly gifted witch, can't sustain her Patronus. Harry, with the advantage of special training involving a Boggart Dementor, and the dubious advantage of having faced a hundred Dementors and then saved himself by casting one from a distance, and the dubious advantage of having faced two more Dementors in OoP, can (usually) sustain a Patronus. But put any of those other DA members, say Cho or Seamus or Ron or Hermione, in an alley facing two Dementors with no help and I don't think that they would come away with their sould intact. (Luna might; she has reserves of courage and optimism that make her different from everyone; and Neville might, given his fierce courage and determination.) Carol, who is simply saying what Harry has said himself, both in regard to Patronuses and to his own powers From whealthinc at ozemail.com.au Sat Apr 26 03:50:16 2008 From: whealthinc at ozemail.com.au (Barry) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 03:50:16 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182657 > > --- "Barry" wrote: > > > > > > I was wondering why Harry had a scar shaped like lightning > > > rather than a smudge. A zig-zag lightning shape is, of course, > > > a symbol of power. Yet the power that creates lightning is an > > > electronic one. Rowling has been quoted here as saying that > > > magic negates electricity. So a magic person wears a sign of > > > a power that is negated by magic! Am I reading this correctly? > > > > > > Barry Thanks for all the replies. It occured to me to Google. I got this from www.muggle.net: Koen Van Der Voort: Why is the scar on harrys forehead lightning shaped J.K. Rowling: To be honest, because it's a cool shape. I couldn't have my hero sport a doughnut-shaped scar. So it depends on what JKR means by 'cool'. Barry From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 05:38:29 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:38:29 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182658 Barry wrote: > Thanks for all the replies. It occured to me to Google. I got this from www.muggle.net: > Koen Van Der Voort: Why is the scar on harrys forehead lightning shaped J.K. Rowling: To be honest, because it's a cool shape. I couldn't have my hero sport a doughnut-shaped scar. > So it depends on what JKR means by 'cool'. Carol responds: First, rather than Googling, if you want to find out what JKR said in her various interviews before posting on a topic here (always a good idea if you're interested in JKR's intentions or how she has answered questions on, say, Thestrals or Patronuses or whatever), I suggest using Accio Quote, a website that allows you to search her interviews and then link to the appropriate ones: http://www.accio-quote.org/ Of course, JKR's aren't always as comprehensive as we might like them to be (a lightning bolt scar is "cool," for example), which leaves a lot of room for speculation, but does pretty much rule out a connection with electricity (or runes, fo that matter). But SS/PS does mention a "curiously shaped cut, like a bolt of lightning" (Am. ed. 13) which indicates an open wound that later healed into a scar, which is useful information if we want to speculate on why an AK would leave a scar (bboy_minn and I and perhaps others think it was caused by the AK bursting out of, not entering, Harry's forehead. But rather than discuss the scar, since you seem more satisfied than I am with JkR's explanation (and her interviews in general, which often provide contradictory information), I wanted to focus on your comment about what JKR thinks is "cool." I think she defines the slang term pretty much as anyone would, meaning something like "admirable" or "fashionable": the "cool" kids are the popular kids that everyone wants to be seen with; a "cool" broomstick is the one that everyone wants to buy. Granted, not everyone wants a scar like Harry's (probably no one does, actually) but people (especially Gryffindors) might think that *Harry* was "cool" because of his scar, or, conversely, the scar was "cool" ("neat!" "excellent!' "wicked!") because it symbolized Harry's "defeating" Voldemort as a fifteen-month-old baby. But, of course, JKR is referring to the shape of the scar, not the scar itself, as "cool," so I think she means that a lightning bolt is more exciting, maybe more manly (even though he's a kid) than a circle or a smudge or a flower or a heart. (Think about small boys and the shapes they might want to have painted on their faces at a fair.) Anyway, to get back to your remark. What does JKR think is "cool"? Lupin, IIRC, says that Harry and James were "the height of cool." I don't want to second-guess JKR, but if Lupin is right, if most of the students (except, probably, the Slytherins) regarded a pair of "arrogant little berks" as "cool," their judgment is (IMO) sadly lacking. (I know that Mike disagrees with me; possibly JKR does as well.) Harry, sitting with Luna and Neville and Ginny on the train, is embarrassed when Cho walks in and finds them all covered in stinksap. Harry wishes that he were with a group of "cool" kids, all of them laughing at something that he said, rather than a "loony" girl who wears spectrespecs and butterbeer-cap necklaces, a forgetful boy who's always losing his toad or carrying around odd plants, and Ron's little sister. I think it's significant that he revises his view of them when he gets to know them better. (Ginny, perhaps, doesn't count, because she's popular and "cheeky" and pretty and so would count as "cool" in the opinion of most of her classmates, but Harry learns that Luna and Neville are much "cooler" than they appear to be, brave and loyal and valuable in themselves, however "dotty" and eccentric or forgetful and chubby they may be. Just a few thoughts that came to me in response to your remark on what JKR means by "cool." Carol,who intended this post to be fun, not serious, but it took me in unexpected directions From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 05:43:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 05:43:25 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182659 Carol earlier: > Lupin, IIRC, says that Harry and James were "the height of cool." Carol again: Obviously, I meant Sirius and James. Carol, wasting a post and wondering why stupid errors are always invisible until *after* you've hit "Send"! From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Apr 26 12:40:49 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:40:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182660 > Carol, who is simply saying what Harry has said himself, both in > regard to Patronuses and to his own powers Potioncat: Harry is not an extraordinary wizard, though he does manage to achieve extraordinary things. What Harry has in great abundance is determination and courage. He also has 2 good friends and a bit of luck. Harry says it. Snape says it. Harry sounds modest when he says it, Snape sounds disparaging--but the words are true. In fact, for the most part, the wizarding students who do appear extraordinary don't end up well. (Tom, Gellert, young Crouch) (Perhaps Snape) DD is the only one who does. I'm not sure where to put James and Sirius. James's days were numbered when Harry was concieved. Sirius's recklessness destroyed his potential. I'll bet that every kid who read HP thought Harry was just like him/her. (bright or not) And I'll bet every kid hoped that if danger came, they too would meet the challenge head on. From willsonkmom at msn.com Sat Apr 26 12:45:32 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:45:32 -0000 Subject: The scar In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182661 > > Carol, wasting a post and wondering why stupid errors are always > invisible until *after* you've hit "Send"! > Potioncat: That would be due to the Errata Obscura curse. Unless of course you were using the Weasley self correcting quill, in which case you're lucky not to have gotten something even worse. From mcrudele78 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 17:57:15 2008 From: mcrudele78 at yahoo.com (Mike) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:57:15 -0000 Subject: James and Sirius - "Coolness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182663 > > Barry wrote: > > So it depends on what JKR means by 'cool'. > > Carol responded: > > > I wanted to focus on your comment > about what JKR thinks is "cool." > > > What does JKR think is "cool"? > Lupin, IIRC, says that [Sirius] and James were "the height of > cool." I don't want to second-guess JKR, but if Lupin is right, > if most of the students (except, probably, the Slytherins) > regarded a pair of "arrogant little berks" as "cool," their > judgment is (IMO) sadly lacking. (I know that Mike disagrees > with me; possibly JKR does as well.) Mike: You're right on at least one count, I disagree with you about James and Sirius. But I don't know about JKR, I don't think she wanted *us* to think James and Sirius were "cool". I think she did her best (mostly in SWM) to demonstrate that the Marauders were arrogant and that at least James and Sirius were bullies. And I don't think JKR likes bullies. I think JKR tried valiantly, though not always successfully, to paint Draco as a bully so we would not like him, either. I say not successfully because there were a LOT of Draco fans amongst her readership, as there were many (including me) Marauder fans. If you don't want to, I'll second-guess JKR on this subject. Sure these guys are arrogant, arrogance is integral to coolness, imo. One won't be "the height of cool" unless one is at least slightly arrogant. People like to point to the detentions and the hexing in the hallways as defining their characters. Well, hexing in the hallways is what wizarding kids do. It's not permanent, it's just their form of slapstick humor. Look at the condition of Draco and company after the DA responds on the Hogwarts Express at the end of OotP. If these were normal humans with normal methods of fighting, we'd see Draco's condition as worse than death. Yet he's back and fine at the start of HBP. Hexing in the hallways is fun and games for wizard kids. I look at Lily's recriminations in SWM in a new light after DH. She's coming to the defense of her friend, she's throwing everything at James that she can think of. "... hexing who annoys you just because you can ..." Well, Lily dear, *anyone can* hex others, you're wizards and witches. And it happens all the time and continues to happen in Harry's time at Hogwarts. Also, you don't hex your friends, you hex those that "annoy" you - what's so abominable about that? I think Lily's upset because this time it's her pal Snivellus. But mostly I discount Lily's strictures because she ended up marrying this "arrogant toerag" only a few short years later. How much did she believe these recriminations and how much of it was her lashing out at the guy that was picking on her friend? Does arrogance define them? I don't think so, I think their talents define them. The fact that they could become Animagi at such a young age and hide it right under the crooked nose of Albus Dumbledore (read: they did it on their own) when it's supposed to be a dangerous transformation if done wrong, speaks to their talents. Their talents must be apparent to all the other young wizards. They are above average, maybe way above average, in the one thing that other witches and wizards on a whole look up to; magical abilities. That, above all else, is what makes them "cool". So they go gallivanting with a werewolf. Was it dangerous? Sure it was, but not so much that they couldn't handle it. I know that because they did, despite the close calls. The wimpy Lupin, the only non-Animagus, chastises himself and by extension all of the Marauders for their arrogance. Yet he admits that it wasn't *so* dangerous that they didn't go out and do it again. Besides, there is one thing that nobody has explained to me that would make me re-evaluate my position on the Marauder's marauding with a werewolf: What about all the other werewolves? They aren't bound up or confined like Lupin was in his Hogwarts days. In fact, the adult Lupin is sent out to spy on them by Dumbledore. What does the WW as a whole do about these other werewolves. Are there precautions taken? Don't they know to take these precautions during the full moon? How exactly is Lupin's condition different from all the other werewolves that cause him to have to be locked up? Sure, he can't be allowed to transform in the dorm. But why does he have to be locked up in the Shack when we never hear of any other werewolves having to be locked up on full moon nights? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182660 Potioncat: In fact, for the most part, the wizarding students who do appear extraordinary don't end up well. (Tom, Gellert, young Crouch) (Perhaps Snape) DD is the only one who does. I'm not sure where to put James and Sirius. James's days were numbered when Harry was concieved. Sirius's recklessness destroyed his potential. Mike: Yippee, I get to disagree with JKR again. Well maybe it's just Harry. I think JKR wanted to paint Sirius as reckless, but I'm not buying it. I call it more controlled mayhem. As I've outlined above, I think the marauding with the werewolf was good wizarding fun. If that was supposed to be a mark in the reckless column, didn't work for me. Was his going after Peter reckless? C'mon, who wouldn't go after the ratboy, erstwhile friend after he sold your best friend and wife out to their deaths? Sirius *was* more talented than Peter, he could defeat him and Peter knew it. Peter didn't fight Sirius, he perpetrated a ruse and ran. Maybe quicker thinking than Sirius thought him capable, but certainly not an indication that Sirius' action in going after Peter was reckless. I can't possibly conceive of how Sirius going to the MoM to help Harry (in OotP) was reckless, no matter what Snape said. In what way was Sirius being reckless and the rest of the Order wasn't? Or were they all reckless, in which case someone will have to explain to me that reasoning? Standing on the Dias in front of the Veil maybe was reckless. Or maybe the course of the battle took him there and he didn't even realize where he was. That's the way I read it. YMMV. Laughing at Bellatrix, his last living act, could be perceived as reckless, I'll grant that one. In my mind, I saw Sirius being carried away with the adrenaline rush (or whatever wizards get), and getting overly exuberant for the situation. He's actually enjoying this fighting. So that's another thing I disagree with JKR on. Or do I? I like the Marauders, so I am biased. But I don't find them to be egregiously bullying nor overly arrogant nor, in the case of Sirius, ridiculously reckless. But maybe JKR only painted the picture and is allowing me to interpret it in anyway I like. Mike, who will continue to defend his Marauder buddies, cuz JKR has allowed me to think of them as real people by transporting me successfully into the Potterverse. From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 19:02:15 2008 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:02:15 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182664 Potioncat: Harry is not an extraordinary wizard, though he does manage to achieve extraordinary things. What Harry has in great abundance is determination and courage. He also has 2 good friends and a bit of luck. Harry says it. Snape says it. Harry sounds modest when he says it, Snape sounds disparaging--but the words are true. In fact, for the most part, the wizarding students who do appear extraordinary don't end up well. (Tom, Gellert, young Crouch) (Perhaps Snape) DD is the only one who does. I'm not sure where to put James and Sirius. James's days were numbered when Harry was concieved. Sirius's recklessness destroyed his potential. I'll bet that every kid who read HP thought Harry was just like him/her. (bright or not) And I'll bet every kid hoped that if danger came, they too would meet the challenge head on. Beatrice responds: Excellent! Yes, I agree. But I think that again, this doesn't quite take into account the importance of Love, friendship, and Harry's sacrifice. These three things are what makes Harry extraordinary. There was a study not too long ago about child prodigies which indicated that children who are considered "average" or just slightly above actually achieve more later in life than those who are considered exceptional early. Although Harry is thought exceptional early on, his academic performance is average, except for a few notable and already much noted exceptions. What I am trying to argue is that everyone (except perhaps DD), including Harry underestimates the power of the three talents that are uniquely his love, friendship, and selflessness. okay so some would argue that the love comes from his mother, but it is Harry that keeps it alive in himself against impossible odds. It is Harry who gives it freely and at moments where others would not dare to. > > > Beatrice responded: > 1st: Fear of a fake Dementor? It seemed to me that even the boggart > was able to produce the same effect as a real dementor as evidenced by > Harry's experience in Lupin's office - he hears his mother's death, > passes out and has to be revived with chocolate. > > Carol responds: > Which is exactly my point. Harry's Boggart, shared by no other person > we know of, allows him to practice (safely) on a highly effective > substitute Dementor. No one else has that advantage. All they can do > is cast learn to cast a Patronus in the RoR, where it's easy to find > and concentrate on a happy memory. It's another matter altogether when > a Dementor (whether real or a highly realistic Boggart substitute) is > sucking out the very happiness that's required to conjure the > Patronus. The Boggart, scary as it is, can't *really* suck out his > happiness, much less his soul, any more than Boggart!Snape can really > take points from Neville or a Boggart mummy can really do whatever > mummies do. Beatrice: Not to quibble over such a small point, but I agree that the fake Dementor probably cannot suck out Harry's soul - but it does an excellent job of sucking out Harry's happiness...so I don't think that you point really holds up here. As for what you are maintaining here and at several other points in your argument that Harry has the advantage of private lessons that no one else does. I have to disagree with you here. > Carol responds: > Does any student other than Harry actually receive private lessons? (I > suppose we could count Snape's putting Crabbe and Goyle in detention, > ostensibly to help them pass their DADA OWLs this time around, but I > can't recall any other examples.) And sure, Karkaroff and Madame > Maxime did a fair bit of cheating (erm, pardon the word "fair"!) to > help their students in the TWT, but no other Hogwarts student receives > help resembling what Harry receives from Lupin. Harry could not have > won the TWT without help from Fake!Moody, Death Eater or no. But maybe > that's not what you're talking about here. I can't tell. > > > Beatrice: > > Okay - but they master it under Harry's instruction, with NO > dementor or even a fake Dementor present (which makes it much less > impressive) AND in DH they face the Dementors together - not own their > own. And not with Harry's past which Lupin tells us in PoA is why he > reacts so strongly to the dementors. > > Carol responds: > They learn how to cast a corporeal Patronus, but they don't experience > the fear that Harry feels when he's learning to cast one. *They* don't > relive their worst experiences (or require chocolate :-) ); they're > just learning a cool new spell. Seamus, Neville, and Luna don't face > real Dementors until DH, when most of them are in seventh year (Luna > is in sixth), and even Hermione, now eighteen years old and a highly > gifted witch, can't sustain her Patronus. Harry, with the advantage of > special training involving a Boggart Dementor, and the dubious > advantage of having faced a hundred Dementors and then saved himself > by casting one from a distance, and the dubious advantage of having > faced two more Dementors in OoP, can (usually) sustain a Patronus. Beatrice: Which is exactly my point. That casting a patronus is one thing - but casting it in the presence of a dementor is quite extraordinary. Even Hermione who is known for trying difficult spells says to Harry in their third year that casting a true corporal Patronus is "very advanced" magic. Don't forget that it isn't until TWO years later that the others even attempt this bit of magic. Hermione, who seems to try a lot of things on her own, either doesn't appear to try it or isn't able to master it until Harry's lessons. But let's get back to one of your important points, that no one, but Harry gets extra help. I know that this will start a riot on this board because I am going to point out a couple of things that aren't explicitly stated in the canon, but I think that your argument fails to consider that others do get help and the many useful forms that that help can come in that Harry is not privileged to receive. First, let's think about the advantage that students have coming from a wizarding family. Okay, Ron says that really they don't have that much of an advantage over muggle borns, but even if they are not taught magic they get to see it performed on a daily basis by qualified, of age magicians. Even the Weasley twins who are seen to have spectacular magical skills particularly in their joke products, have each other to work with, practice on, and can use each other's strengths to benefit them as a whole (I also think that it is important to note that the twins have mediocre to poor academic performances. This exposure might prove very useful especially when it comes to learning wand movements and incantations. But what about muggle borns? Aren't they at the same disadvantage as Harry? Look at what Hermione accomplishes. I doubt that anyone would argue that Hermione is anything but exceptional, but I also doubt that any muggle born has Harry's distinct disadvantage at home. While it is true that no one is allowed to practice magic outside school, Harry is probably the only or at least in a very small minority of students who is denied the right to study over the summer months (see the opening chapters of PoA). He does manage, but under pretty extreme circumstances: picking a locked door, without magic; sneaking his books upstairs; working only in the dead of night when everyone is sleeping; and hiding all evidence of his studies. Which brings us back to Carol's point that no one gets private study with a professor. It is probably safe to say that no one has dementor lessons, although Lupin probably would help anyone who asks, because that is the kind of person he is, and that no one gets occlumency lessons from Snape - although we DO know that Malfoy gets them from Bellatrix, which seems to be a distinct advantage over the lessons that Harry gets as Harry has to take lessons from a sadist who Harry hates and who hates him and a great set up for Harry to be able to focus and control his emotions. It probably isn't difficult to imagine that wizard parents and relatives would probably give their children lessons in the summer ? if not practical ones then certainly showing them certain techniques that are in line with the parents's own interests and talents (eg. Luna's expedition with her father to find crumple horned snorkacks.) So, Malfoy is only one case, but we do have evidence that other people have received special instruction and suggestions that some other people might have also. We know for a fact that Lavender and Pavarti frequent Prof. Trelawney's office (okay so she is a batty, fraud) but it is probably safe to say that they discuss more than just daffodils and tea cozies. Charlie is now working with dragons and has a special gift with magical creatures and we know that he frequented Hagrid's hut (GoF). Neville has an aptitude for Herbology and appears to work with Prof. Sprout outside of class (there is a reference to this - I can't think of it off the top of my head). Neville even spends time with the fake Moody having tea. Hermione seems to have several ex par tee conversations with a variety of professors. We even know that several students have paid visits to Dumbledore's office, although I admit probably for disciplinary issues rather than "lessons." So Harry gets some extra help. He also has a lot more riding on his shoulders then almost anyone else. I'm not arguing that Harry is the greatest wizard of his age or that his talents are vastly superior than most other wizards. What I am saying is that he accomplishes a lot and he deserves credit for it (not Lupin, Dumbledore, James, Hermione, etc.) In the end Harry is the one who faces LV. He faces him repeatedly alone and ultimately wins despite all of LV's "extraordinary" talent. Beatrice, who isn't arguing that Harry be canonized, just allowed to take credit for his accomplishments no matter how "mediocre" his academic performance. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Sat Apr 26 19:25:22 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 19:25:22 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182665 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "nikkalmati" wrote: > > > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > > > > --- "Mike" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > > > > > > > > > > > CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows > > > > Chapter 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > QUESTIONS: > > > > > > > > .... > > > > > > > > 6. With regards to "For the Greater Good", Hermione said > > > > Dumbledore changed. Did he? Though Dumbledore rejected > > > > Grindelwald's interpretation of that phrase, did Dumbledore > > > > reject his own interpretation? > > > > > > > > > > Steve/bboyminn > snip >On some occasions human will sacrifices The Few to save The >Many, but on other occasion, quite illogically, humans will >sacrifice The Many to save The Few. >This was especially impressed on me when Aberforth and Harry >argue in 'Deathly Hallows' just before Harry and friends >enter Hogwarts castle. Harry in essence says that some causes >are so great and so true, and the need so real that indeed >the few must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good, >or if you will the greater good, of the many. >Nikkalmati >The problem I am struggling with here is that Albus appears to be >willing to sacrifice other people for the good of the many. This is >part of Aberforth's problem with his brother. He is asking Harry if >he really knows what he is getting into. Of course, he doesn't - >Albus never told him. Albus knew Harry would be willling to go >forward at any cost, but was that fair? Albus' MO is to trap you >into a committment and then shame you into going on when you finally >see the handwriting on the wall. Not my idea of the highest moral >standard. >Nikkalmati From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Sat Apr 26 21:17:07 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:17:07 -0000 Subject: James and Sirius - "Coolness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182666 > Mike: > You're right on at least one count, I disagree with you about James > and Sirius. > > But I don't know about JKR, I don't think she wanted *us* to think > James and Sirius were "cool". I think she did her best (mostly in > SWM) to demonstrate that the Marauders were arrogant and that at > least James and Sirius were bullies. And I don't think JKR likes > bullies. I think JKR tried valiantly, though not always successfully, > to paint Draco as a bully so we would not like him, either. I say not > successfully because there were a LOT of Draco fans amongst her > readership, as there were many (including me) Marauder fans. Magpie: I think she thought they were cool. Sure she doesn't like a bully like Draco or Pansy, but she also doesn't give them any of the things she's describing as cool with the Marauders. They're obviously different. The problem with Draco isn't that he insults people or enjoys seeing them in pain. It's who and why he does those thing (and in the end it turns how he doesn't really naturally like that stuff as much as a lot of other characters too.) She agrees Sirius is the sexiest and he's right there bullying with James. Many people see the Twins as bullies too. I think there's an obvious difference between MWPP and Draco & Co., and only one group is cool. The Marauders bullying is presented as forgivable imo. They were letting off steam against a kid they identified as a Dark Wizard. Sure James needed to "deflate" his head, but Lily already liked him in SWM and she's hiding a smile during the bullying itself. JKR indulges in plenty of similar stuff as an author as well at the expense of other characters. So yeah, I don't think JKR really sees MWPP as the bad kind of bullies--and I do think she makes the distinction. She kind of has to given the way good and bad breaks down in the book. The good guys are totally better at this sort of thing, which is part of what makes them cool. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 22:35:07 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 22:35:07 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182667 Carol earlier: > > Which is exactly my point. Harry's Boggart, shared by no other person we know of, allows him to practice (safely) on a highly effective substitute Dementor. No one else has that advantage. All they can do is cast learn to cast a Patronus in the RoR, where it's easy to find and concentrate on a happy memory. It's another matter altogether when a Dementor (whether real or a highly realistic Boggart substitute) is sucking out the very happiness that's required to conjure the Patronus. The Boggart, scary as it is, can't *really* suck out his happiness, much less his soul, any more than Boggart!Snape can really take points from Neville or a Boggart mummy can really do whatever mummies do. > Beatrice responded: > Not to quibble over such a small point, but I agree that the fake Dementor probably cannot suck out Harry's soul - but it does an excellent job of sucking out Harry's happiness...so I don't think that you point really holds up here. Carol: Yes, *of course,* it does an excellent job of sucking out Harry's happiness. That's what makes it such an effective substitute for a real Dementor. Harry's ability to cast a Patronus against a real Dementor that is not only sucking out his happiness but could also, if given the opportunity, suck out his soul, has been gained through practice with a Boggart!Dementor that can *also* suck out his happiness (but can't, fortunately, suck out his soul, which is why he can safely practice on it, especially with Lupin there to banish the Boggart and hand Harry chocolate.) It's like the difference between driving lessons that safely simulate real driving conditions, complete with car crashes and other dangers, and those that just teach a kid how to turn the steering wheel, look in the rearview mirror, and put the car in gear, and then sending them both into traffic with no adult in the car with them. The second kid might be able to drive a car on a real street, but the first kid would have a great advantage over him in having already faced and survived dangerous conditions in a realistic simulation. Before the lessons, Lupin says, "I'll have to think carefully about how we're going to do this. We can't bring a real dementor into the castle to practice on" (PoA Am. ed. 235). At the beginning of the first lesson, he tells Harry that the Boggart he's found is "the nearest we'll get to a real dementor. The boggart will turn into a dementor when it sees you, so we'll be able to practice on him" (236). After Harry has practiced the incantation and cast a wispy, noncorporeal Patronus, Lupin says, "Very good. Right then--ready to try it on a dementor?" (238). And, as you say, Harry experiences exactly what he would face if the Dementor were real, a "wave of piercing cold" and his mother's voice followed by Voldemort's. Exactly as if he were facing a real Dementor, Harry loses consciousness. Lupin, who has apparently sent the Boggart back to its container, gives Harry chocolate, advises him to pick a happier memory, and they try again because Harry is afraid that the Dementors will show up at the match against Ravenclaw and cause him to fall off his broom (238-39). The "Dementor" comes at him again and the experience is repeated. This time he hears James as well. He finds a third, happier memory, the "Dementor" comes out, the room becomes cold and dark, but he's able to cast a huge silver shadow against his Boggart Dementor, which Lupin then gets rid of with the Riddikulus charm (242). Additional practice against this highly effective Dementor substitute enables Harry to cast a Patronus against the real thing. If you still don't see the advantage of learning to cast a Patronus using a Boggart Dementor (available to no other student) against a realistic Dementor substitute, I won't argue with you. But it's no surprise to me that Harry can cast one after those lessons with Lupin, thirteen years old or not. If any other thirteen-year-old wizard of average or above average ability had private lessons with a competent DADA teacher, combined with Harry's motivation (the Dementors affect him more than others because of his background and interfere with his Quidditch games) and a Boggart that substitutes for a real Dementor, sucking out the very happiness required to cast the spell without posing the danger of practicing on a real Dementor, they'd probably learn, too. Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since you agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sat Apr 26 23:52:34 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 23:52:34 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182668 Nikkalmati wrote: > > >The problem I am struggling with here is that Albus appears to be willing to sacrifice other people for the good of the many. This is part of Aberforth's problem with his brother. He is asking Harry if he really knows what he is getting into. Of course, he doesn't - Albus never told him. Albus knew Harry would be willling to go forward at any cost, but was that fair? Albus' MO is to trap you into a committment and then shame you into going on when you finally see the handwriting on the wall. Not my idea of the highest moral standard. Carol responds: For some reason, your post looks like quoted material. Not sure why it shows up that way. With regard to Albus Dumbledore, it's true that he conceals information from Harry, but it's unclear whether he really intends to sacrifice him. Harry has to *think* that he's going to his death and willingly sacrifice himself as his mother sacrificed herself for him (but with a little more dignity and forethought), but Dumbledore knows that Harry has a good chance of surviving. (He can't know that, or the intent to sacrifice himself won't work.) In HBP, DD tells Harry that he doesn't have to act on the Prophecy. It doesn't have to fulfill itself unless he and Voldemort choose to face each other. And they make that choice, LV because he wants to end the threat of the Chosen One and Harry because, even if it means his own death, he wants Voldemort permanently destroyed to pervent him from ruining any more lives. The other people that DD puts at risk know that they're risking their lives and do so willingly. Snape could leave at any time and go back to Voldemort or just refuse to do what DD asks of him, whether it's returning to Voldemort in the first place or killing him on the tower or giving Harry the Sword of Gryffindor. Other Order members--Mr. Weasley, Sirius Black, Remus Lupin, Mad-eye Moody--willingly put their lives on the line because, as Black says in OoP, some things are worth dying for. In all cases, it's like a soldier volunteering to fight in a war against another country that threatens his own. The soldier puts the good of his country against his own personal good. (A country that resorts to the draft also puts the good of the country above that of the individual soldier, but the soldier in that instance, unlike the Order members, has no choice but to obey or risk imprisonment.) Dumbledore himself chooses to die for the greater good. He could have called Fawkes and escaped; he could have stayed at Madam Rosmerta's and had Harry bring Snape to rescue him rather than flying to the Astronomy Tower when he saw the Dark Mark. But he wants to strip the Elder Wand of its power, which requires his death at Snape's hands. IOW, he expects no more of Snape or Harry or the Order than he expects of himself. All of them could opt out but none do because most of them (Mundungus is an obvious exception) put the good of the WW above their own individual good (as does Neville when he valiantly steps forward to oppose Voldemort and somehow "kill the snake" even after he thinks that Harry is dead). Aberforth, though he's an Order member, too, doesn't understand this philosophy. He thinks that Harry should save himself at the expense of everyone else. When Harry tell him that he and his friends have to get into Hogwarts, he responds, "What you've got to do is to get as far from here as you can" (DH Am ed. 561). And after Harry argues that Aberforth's brother gave him a job, Aberforth argues that the job, whatever it is, is too big for "an unqualified wizard kid" and tells him, "Let it go, boy, before you follow him! Save yourself!" Aberforth gives his view of Albus ("secrecy and lies") and tells him that many people Albus cared about ended up worse off than if he'd left them alone. His words eat into Harry's desire to trust Albus Dumbledore and keep to his purpose (562-63). Aberforth tells the Grindelwald/Ariana story, saying at one point, "Grand plans for the benefit of Wizardkind, and if one young girl got neglected, what did that matter, when Albus was working for *the greater good*"? (566). Harry tells him about Dumbledore in the cave, tortured by the terrible memory of Grindelwald hurting Aberforth and Ariana. Aberforth says, "How can you be sure, Potter, that my brother wasn't more interested in the greater good than in you? How can you be sure that you aren't dispensable, like my little sister?" He asks why Albus didn't just tell Harry how to take care of himself and survive. Harry answers, "Because sometimes you've *got* to think about more than your own safety! Sometimes You've *got* to think about the greater good! This is war!" (568). Harry informs Aberforth, who thinks that Voldemort has won and they might as well accept it, athat Albus has told him how to defeat Voldemort and that he's determined to do it. "I'm going to keep going until I succeed--or die" 569). Of course, Harry's faith in Dumbledore crumbles--he thinks that DD has "betrayed" him--after he enters Snape's memories and learns that he has to sacrifice himself, but he remains determined to "finish the job" because only by dying himself can he ensure that Voldemort won't survive (691). And after Harry returns, he explains to Voldemort that he was "ready to die to stop you from hurting these people" (738). And Harry faces him one last time, alone, unafraid of death, for the greater good. And he gives up the Elder Wand for the same reason, determined to end its power for good. I don't think that the greater good as Harry sees it bears much resemblance to the delusions of power and control that Albus Dumbledore had at seventeen. Nor do I think that DD retained those delusions. He passed up the post of Minister of Magic three times, and he fought Voldemort mostly behind the scenes, by gathering memories, training Harry (who would have had to face LV regardless), and teaching Harry about the Horcruxes, risking his own life in the cave rather than risk Harry's. Yes, he was secretive. Yes, he was manipulative and controlling and had a greater faith in his intellect and his plans than was perhaps justified. But, IMO, he, not Aberforth, was right that sometimes the individual must risk or even sacrifice his own life for the benefit of others, whether it's a mother dying to save her child or a seventeen-year-old boy facing an enemy only he can destroy. Carol, who thinks that the greater good motif is crucial to our understanding of DH but suspects that it's one of those topics on which our opinions wil remain divided From bboyminn at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 07:07:49 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 07:07:49 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182669 --- "nikkalmati" wrote: > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > snip > >On some occasions human will sacrifices The Few to save The > >Many, but on other occasion, quite illogically, humans will > >sacrifice The Many to save The Few. > > >This was especially impressed on me when Aberforth and Harry > >argue in 'Deathly Hallows' just before Harry and friends > >enter Hogwarts castle. Harry in essence says that some causes > >are so great and so true, and the need so real that indeed > >the few must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good, > >or if you will the greater good, of the many. > >Nikkalmati > > The problem I am struggling with here is that Albus appears > to be willing to sacrifice other people for the good of the > many. This is part of Aberforth's problem with his brother. > He is asking Harry if he really knows what he is getting into. > Of course, he doesn't - Albus never told him. Albus knew > Harry would be willing to go forward at any cost, but was > that fair? Albus' MO is to trap you into a committment and > then shame you into going on when you finally see the > handwriting on the wall. Not my idea of the highest moral > standard. > > >Nikkalmati > bboyminn: Yes, but how many men did General Eisenhower send to their deaths? How many men did General MacArthur sent to their deaths? How many of those men didn't want to go, but went anyway out of duty and loyalty? And how many of the deadly operation were brutal strategic error in judgment? Dumbledore commands an army, yes, a very small and select army in a very limited war, but none the less, those who follow him, do so by choice and trust his judgment both right and wrong. When he says go, they go out of loyalty to their leader and to their cause. No one wants to be the person who gives that command that sends men to their death, but thank god there are some men willing to do it. Because without them, we would all be speaking either German or Japanese today. Trust me, it's lonely at the top. Steve/bboyminn From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 14:05:12 2008 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:05:12 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182670 *Snip* (or perhaps more accurately *snipe* > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since you > agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a > real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy Beatrice: ROTFLMOA. Is this your real argument? "'Thank you very much, Professor Umbridge, that was most illuminating,' he said bowing to her....(OotP 214) > From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sun Apr 27 16:56:46 2008 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 Apr 2008 16:56:46 -0000 Subject: Weekly Chat, 4/27/2008, 1:00 pm Message-ID: <1209315406.11.12201.m53@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182671 Reminder from: HPforGrownups Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/cal Weekly Chat Sunday April 27, 2008 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 2008 Yahoo! Inc. http://www.yahoo.com Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us Terms of Service: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 19:28:16 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:28:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182672 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" wrote: > > *Snip* (or perhaps more accurately *snipe* > > > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since > you > > agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a > > real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy > > Beatrice: ROTFLMOA. Is this your real argument? > > "'Thank you very much, Professor Umbridge, that was most > illuminating,' he said bowing to her....(OotP 214) > > > Carol responds: Actually, my "real argument" can be found upthread, complete with extensive canon citations. And, FWIW, your logic escapes me as does the relevance of your remark. As for courtesy . . . Carol, who sees nothing to laugh about From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Apr 27 19:43:09 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 19:43:09 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182673 > Beatrice responds: Excellent! Yes, I agree. But I think that > again, this doesn't quite take into account the importance of Love, > friendship, and Harry's sacrifice. These three things are what makes > Harry extraordinary. Potioncat: Ok, I'll agree. The point still is that Harry isn't an extraordinary wizard. No offense to Harry, but he isn't. Hermione, a Muggleborn is already doing witchcraft on the train to Hogwarts when Wizard born Ron can't. Harry has to struggle just like most other kids to learnt the skills and theories to magic. And I think that's a big part of this story. It wasn't a case of a kid showing up at school and amazing everyone with his talents. Teachers weren't exclaiming that they had never seen such raw ability. Well, except for Quidditch, and that supposedly came from James. It was his love and his willingness to put his life on the line for others that made him extraordinary. > > Beatrice, who isn't arguing that Harry be canonized, just allowed to > take credit for his accomplishments no matter how "mediocre" his > academic performance. Potioncat: It seems to me that several of us are saying the same things at the tops of our voices. Yet appearing to make contrary points. No, Harry himself is not extraordinary, but he does rise to the challenge. In the end, it isn't even his wizarding skills that save the day, but his sacrifice. I never thought he had any more love than any other kid. But if you compare him within the half-blood trio of Tom, Snape and Harry---he has love in spades! In 182670 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" wrote: > > *Snip* (or perhaps more accurately *snipe* > > > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since > you > > agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a > > real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy > > Beatrice: ROTFLMOA. Is this your real argument? > > "'Thank you very much, Professor Umbridge, that was most > illuminating,' he said bowing to her....(OotP 214) > > > Potioncat: Quite honestly. I don't get your point here at all. I've read and re- read both posts and it seems to me that you and Carol are in agreement about the effect of the Boggart on Harry. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 20:23:02 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:23:02 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182674 Potioncat: Ok, I'll agree. The point still is that Harry isn't an extraordinary wizard. No offense to Harry, but he isn't. Hermione, a Muggleborn is already doing witchcraft on the train to Hogwarts when Wizard born Ron can't. Harry has to struggle just like most other kids to learnt the skills and theories to magic. Alla: No, he is not extraordinary. My point is that he IS not stupid wizard either, that he is quite talented especially in DADA and yes, I would argue that he is better than Hermione at DADA even. "Beatrice23" wrote: > > > > *Snip* (or perhaps more accurately *snipe* > > > > > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument > since > > you > > > agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a > > > real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy > > > > Beatrice: ROTFLMOA. Is this your real argument? > > > > "'Thank you very much, Professor Umbridge, that was most > > illuminating,' he said bowing to her....(OotP 214) > > > > > > > Potioncat: > Quite honestly. I don't get your point here at all. I've read and re- > read both posts and it seems to me that you and Carol are in > agreement about the effect of the Boggart on Harry. > Alla: I am not Beatrice, but since I find Carol's argument about Boggart quite weak myself, I am going to try and explain why and maybe my reasoning is the same as Beatrice or maybe not. I believe that fact that Harry had a training with Boggart who immitates the Real Dementor has no bearing whatsoever on Harry's ability to cast the patronus. Harry had lessons, sure he did, as Beatrice had showed IMO we see at least hints that other kids have private lessons with other teachers. But what we do not see anywhere in my opinion is ANY kid having lessons with Boggart!Dementor and being able to do so. In fact, Lupin says that it is extraordinary achievement for thirteen year old, mind you he thinks it is extraordinary that Harry managed to do it even with the Boggart!Dementor, doesn't he? So this is the part of the argument I find ridiculous - how exactly the fact that Harry casts it upon the Boggart!Dementor somehow downplays his accomplishment. Boggart Dementor immitates all the effects of real Dementor after all, except being able to suck out the happiness and Harry manages fine eventually. So, yeah, this is my reasoning. For example, imagine kid who needs to learn how to do, I don't know amazing physics experiment which almost nobody at his age can cast and I don't know, this kid gets private lessons with the teacher and teacher imitates exact same conditions as real ones. So kid does not manage from the first try, he manages from the tenth, the thing is NOBODY casts it under real conditions except this kid at his age, or not many people do. This is somehow downplays this kid's accomplishment? I do not see how. JMO, Alla From willsonkmom at msn.com Sun Apr 27 20:41:29 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 20:41:29 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182675 > Alla: > > I believe that fact that Harry had a training with Boggart who > immitates the Real Dementor has no bearing whatsoever on Harry's > ability to cast the patronus. Potioncat: But it had all the bearing in the world! If Boggarts could be made to create that same effect for all the kids, then it could have been used for all of them. It was only Harry who reacted the same way to his Boggart as he did to a Dementor. In fact, Harry reacted more strongly to Dementors than other kids did. While it is pretty amazing that a 13 year old was able to learn it-- and it wasn't a pleasant experience--it was an unusual experience. > Alla: > Harry had lessons, sure he did, as Beatrice had showed IMO we see at > least hints that other kids have private lessons with other teachers. Potioncat: Sure, and that's a good point. Harry is like most other kids. James, Sirius, Severus and Hermione, however, taught themselves magic beyond their years. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 21:01:04 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:01:04 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182676 > > Alla: > > > > > I believe that fact that Harry had a training with Boggart who > > immitates the Real Dementor has no bearing whatsoever on Harry's > > ability to cast the patronus. > > > > Potioncat: > But it had all the bearing in the world! If Boggarts could be made to > create that same effect for all the kids, then it could have been > used for all of them. It was only Harry who reacted the same way to > his Boggart as he did to a Dementor. In fact, Harry reacted more > strongly to Dementors than other kids did. Alla: Look, do you agree that Boggart is like real Dementor in all effects it has on the human being, except sucking the soul? Where do we see any other kid casting Patronus on real Dementor when he is Harry's age. That's what I am trying to say is that I find it bizarre that the fact that Harry IS able to do so somehow is being used against him. Potioncat: > While it is pretty amazing that a 13 year old was able to learn it-- > and it wasn't a pleasant experience--it was an unusual experience. Alla: I see no proof that any thirteen year old COULD learn to do that, that's my point. Sure, Hary did not manage from the first try, my point is that I do not see anybody else who could have managed to do so ON THE REAL DEMENTOR, since as far as I am concerned Boggart is the same thing in its effects. > > Alla: > > Harry had lessons, sure he did, as Beatrice had showed IMO we see > at > > least hints that other kids have private lessons with other > teachers. > > Potioncat: > Sure, and that's a good point. Harry is like most other kids. James, > Sirius, Severus and Hermione, however, taught themselves magic beyond > their years. > Alla: I never argued that Harry is the same as Hermione or Dumbledore. But I maintain that Patronus is a magic beyond his years, but of course he is not in Dumbledore or Hermione's league. My objection is to denying what Harry achieved, when his Es somehow do not mean much, when his Patronus does not mean much, etc, etc. JMO, Alla From kersberg at chello.nl Sun Apr 27 18:46:33 2008 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:46:33 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182677 Pippin: >But my guess is that Snape thought the message > would be in safer hands if it was entrusted to a human rather than to a > magical servant. If so, he was quite right. > > > I don't think Snape was ever very keen on showing his Patronus to somebody else then to Dumbledore, it's shape was similar to that of Lilly Evans and the proof that his loyaty to Lilly and thereby to Dumbledore had not wavered. He had no business what ever to let his worst rival Sirius Black in into that knowledge. Black would never have embraced his as a brother in arms and was spitefull enough to blurt out to the wrong person to have proof on whose side Snape really was. Black's suspicion was a better cover for Snape. kamion53 From kersberg at chello.nl Sun Apr 27 18:18:21 2008 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:18:21 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182678 Carol responds: Surely, if Snape ever flew at Hogwarts before DH, someone would have seen him. (Maybe he didn't do it because it seemed like a Dark power and didn't want to arouse suspicion; maybe he didn't know how yet--if he really learned it from "his master," it was probably after the death of DD Kamion53: I wondered a bit about that, but in Quidditch through the Ages, JKR start with: "No spell yet devised enables wizards to fly unaidded in human form" so I took it that Snape performed a very strong Levitation spell on himself, strong enough to glide like a sugarsquirrel from the very high Ravenclaw tower to the Hogwarts boundery. That was the image I got at first reading, maybe because I just disliked the image of Snape in active flight like a bat. The connection with a bat sounded so fanficerish to me. I also have very much trouble that Voldy would share a new found magic with anyone at all. I neither imagine his flight as a active bird like flagging flight, more a speedy drift on the wind like a thundercloud. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 22:51:42 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:51:42 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182679 Alla: > > I believe that fact that Harry had a training with Boggart who immitates the Real Dementor has no bearing whatsoever on Harry's ability to cast the patronus. > Potioncat: > But it had all the bearing in the world! If Boggarts could be made to create that same effect for all the kids, then it could have been used for all of them. It was only Harry who reacted the same way to his Boggart as he did to a Dementor. In fact, Harry reacted more strongly to Dementors than other kids did. Carol responds: Thanks, Potioncat. I agree, of course. As I noted in my earlier post, Lupin believed that Harry needed a substitute Dementor to practice on. Luckily for both of them, Harry's Boggart served the purpose, duplicating the experience of facing a real Dementor without endangering Harry. That's simple canon fact. While it doesn't affect his ability to cast a corporeal Patronus in itself (most of the DA students could also do so) it certainly provides an advantage in casting one against a real Dementor. (As Harry says about the corporeal Patronus that he sends from Hagrid's cabin, "I knew I could do it because I'd already done it.") Facing a fake Dementor that sucks out the happiness required to cast a spell just as a real Dementor would enables him to practice under realistic conditions unavailable to anyone else. If that didn't matter, Lupin would simply have taught him the spell without bothering to procure a Boggart. Beatrice and I apparently agree on the effect that the Dementor!Boggart has on Harry. Where we disagree, apparently, is that I think his facing the highly realistic Boggart substitute gave him a distinct advantage (all too the good--he needed that advantage) when it came to casting a Patronus against a real Dementor. She seems to think, and evidently you agree, Alla, that he could have done just as well having practiced conjuring the spell without a Boggart, in safe conditions like those in the RoR. Carol, who thinks that Remus Lupin would agree with me From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Sun Apr 27 23:25:00 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:25:00 -0000 Subject: Snape's Messenger Patronus ((was Re: Snape's Dementor lesson In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182680 Kamion53 wrote: > I don't think Snape was ever very keen on showing his Patronus to somebody else then to Dumbledore, it's shape was similar to that of Lilly Evans and the proof that his loyaty to Lilly and thereby to Dumbledore had not wavered. Carol responds: I've already given reasons why I think that Sirius Black would have brushed aside any apparently similarity between Snape's Patronus and Lily's, which I won't repeat here. (It might actually have been advantageous to the Order and to Harry for Black to know that Snape was loyalty to Dumbledore, but it would have spoiled JKR's plot by making Snape's loyalties unambiguous.) It's interesting, however, that neither Harry, who feels that the doe has come for him alone and that she's somehow familiar, nor Ron, who at first thinks that the doe is Harry's Patronus and then remembers that she had no antlers, associates the doe with Lily even though Harry, at least, knows that his father's Animagus form (we don't know his Patronus) and might be expected to make the connection. (Probably the fact that his mother is long dead has some bearing on the matter.) But the doe's being female isn't even considered when they try to figure out whose the Patronus is, nor is whom or what it might represent. Harry asks Ron if *he* cast it and Ron says no: he thought it was Harry's (DH Am. ed. 371). Ron asks if it might have been Kingsley, and they remember that Kingsley's is a lynx, and Ron even wonders if it might have been Dumbledore since Dumbledore had the Sword of Gryffindor last. And Harry doesn't laugh, finding the idea that DD could come back from the dead to help them comforting. Neither finds it at all incongruous that a powerful male wizard might have a female Patronus. (It is, after all, a very bright and beautiful and powerful creature.) Harry does, however, inform Ron that DD's Patronus was a Phoenix. Granted, Harry speculates earlier about the meaning of Tonks's changed Patronus, but in this case, meaning doesn't seem to come into the picture. Your Patronus is what it is, at least from their point of view, and they make no connection between the *specific* Patronus and the caster. They're simply trying to figure out who might have cast it, knowing only that the caster was helping them and had access to the Sword of Gryffindor. (Not surprisingly, Snape doesn't occur to them as a possibility.) Given Ron's and Harry's failure to interpret the Patronus as symbolizing Lily, I'm not sure that we can safely assume that Sirius Black or Remus Lupin (the only Order members present in 12 GP when Snape contacted the Order who really knew Lily and might have seen her Patronus) would have connected Snape's Patronus with Lily. Carol, who still thinks that they would have been worried about Harry's safety and paid no attention whatever to the form of Snape's Patronus *if* he used it on that night, which he may or may not have done From catlady at wicca.net Mon Apr 28 01:41:30 2008 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:41:30 -0000 Subject: GG/Fawkes&Hat/RL'sPatronus/HP'sPatronus/Astronomy/FB/WorthDyingFor Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182681 Carol wrote on : << As you say, we don't know what Gellert did to get himself expelled from Durmstrang, but if Durmstrang deserves its reputation as a school that teaches the Dark Arts (presumably using teachers with considerably more intelligence and subtlety than Amycus Carrow), he must have done something dark and dreadful or else endangered a large number of people. I doubt that he killed anyone or he'd have been imprisoned rather than expelled. >> The author obviously wanted us to think, what could be horrible enough to break *Durmstrang* rules? One imagines that even a Dark Arts school would have rules against students practising AK on each other or teachers or staff, but would they have a rule against practising AK on a Muggle, as long as the Statute of Secrecy was well defended by making it look to all the Muggles that the guy died of cold or of falling of off a cliff? Maybe they allow students to practise Cruiciatus and Imperius on each other, thus giving the opportunity to practise dodging and parrying and resisting. Maybe they have petty rules about not contradicting a teacher or not writing graffiti or about always wearing the uniform. "[W]here we meet resistance, We must use only the force that is necessary and no more. (This was your mistake at Durmstrang[.)]" (US p357) Take it literally - he met resistance and used too much force trying to get his own way. It could be Gellaert had recruited other students to help him search for the Deathly Hallows and Eurmstrang's professor of History of Magic ordered him to stop leading the other children into delusion, told him that the Deathly Hallows are nothing but a child's tale, they don't really exist and if they did exist, they couldn't cause earthly immortality. That would be resistance. If he simply told the teacher 'You're wrong', that would be talking back, and earn some punishment. If he carved the DH symbol. very large, on a wall, that would be graffiti as well as disobedience. It would amuse me if he had tortured and murdered a few people but was finally expelled for graffiti. It would also explain why only Krum recognized the symbol on Zenophlius Lovegood's necklace - Krum saw it at Durmstrang and was told that Grindelwald had carved it there, but people who hadn't gone to Durmstrang had no idea it was associated with Grindelwald, because the symbol of his Empire was something else. << He and Albus as boys imagine themselves as co-rulers, but only one can wield the One Ring--erm, the Elder Wand. >> It would be interesting for Magical Theory to find out if the Three Hallows can be owned collectively by two people in such a way that they both get immortality. It would be interesting for Magical Theory to find out if the Elder Wand can be owned collectively by two people in such a way that each of gets super-wizard power when using it. Of course, the personality of the Elder Wand, like that of the One Ring, is such that it would tempt, urge, and seduce the one holding it not to let the other have a turn, and tempt, urge, and seduce the other to kill his friend just to get his turn. But few people seem to have trouble believing that a man and a woman who are something like married can claw their way to power as a team and then wield power as a team, without falling out over which of them gets to be top boss. If it were Greta Grindelwald, would you be as certain tney couldn't share rulership and the Elder Wand? Carol thinks in : << that DD really meant, "Help will come to you [Harry] when you enter the CoS because I've arranged for your protection" >> which Geoff corrected in : << "You will also find that help will always be given at Hogwarts to those who ask for it." >> and to which Jack-A-Roe replied in : << What about Myrtle? >> Geoff's version solves that -- she was killed too suddenly to call for help. I partly agree with Carol -- DD said that, looking straight at the invisible Harry and Ron, to tell them that a protection had been arranged for them. I think the Hat and the Sword had a relationship since Godric, Albus just knew about it rather than arranging it. I don't know if Albus instructed Fawkes to take the Hat to Harry in the CoS or if he knew that Fawkes was also part of the magical relationship. However, I greatly dislike that DD would say 'always ... those who ask for it' if he only meant 'Harry, this time'. Carol wrote in : << Nor does [the Sorting Hat] talk unless it's on someone's head. (It wouldn't have called out to Fawkes as Fawkes left his perch to rescue Harry, "Wait! Take me!") >> Maybe it can speak to people who aren't wearing it on their heads. Just because we haven't seen it is not proof that it's impossible. Even if not to people, maybe it can speak to magical beasts who aren't wearing it on their heads. Or maybe as long as Fawkes has lived in the Headmaster's office, he's had a habit of sticking his head into the Hat when he needs advice. Did Herself ever say whether Fawkes was old enough to have been Godric Gryffindor's companion bird? Niru wrote in : << I'm pretty sure we don't find out what Remus's patronus is in canon. In PoA we are just told that he "shot some silver stuff" at the dementors. While teaching Harry he never actually produces a patronus himself (although he obviously can). >> Some time some listies suggested that Remus can't actually cast a Patronus, only that little whisp of silver stuff. Not that he has no happy memory to use, but that his basic personality is always too depressed for a happy memory to suffice. I think Rowling's statement that members of the Order communicated via Patronus was understood to mean that no one can join the Order who can't cast a Patronus and therefore Remus must be able to. Except it seems unlikely that Order member Mrs Figg, a Squib, can cast a Patronus. Another theory was that his Patronus is a cloud, because a cloud can cover his worst enemy, the Full Moon. But a cloud covering th4 Moon doesn't stop the werewolf transformation (except in the dramatic scene in PoA) so I doubt a cloud Patronus would give him a very warm and fuzzy feeling. Perhaps his Patronus used to be a stag or a huge shaggy bear-like dog, because it was James and Sirius who 'did something for me that would make my transformations not only bearable, but the best times of my life. They became Animagi.' (PoA, of course) But I think he couldn't have cast that Patronus after the Halloween night. Magpie wrote in : << in the end it seemed like the main reason casting a Patronus at 13 was so unusual was that nobody teaches it. People seemed to be doing okay in the DA and some of them were 14 or average students. >> But "as Harry kept reminding them, producing a Patronus in the middle of a brightly lit classroom when they were not under threat was very different from producing it when confronted by something like a Dementor." (OoP ch 27) Much as Beatrice wrote in : << Okay - but they master it under Harry's instruction, with NO dementor or even a fake Dementor present (which makes it much less impressive) >> Jerri wrote in : << Why do they take Astronomy, for FIVE years, when there is so much other stuff that they don't have time to study? >> I don't know, except that when modern people think of wizards, it's almost as much a cliche to imagine them viewing the night sky through small telescopes as to imagine them wearing medieval robes. However, the origin of that cliche was people doing astrology before they were very good at calculating the movements of the planets, and therefore had to actually see them. (The above is much the same as Jerri answered herself in : << I tend to think that it is one of those things that JKR intended to have Harry do because it seemed to be a wizarding sort of class >>) But perhaps advanced wizards Apparate all over the Solar System, wo they need to know what life support spells they'll need at each destination :) << And, why is Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them a required text for first year students at Hogwarts, when they don't take Care of Magical Creatures classes until third year? >> As far as I can tell, FB was the text for Lupin's DADA claas. Maybe Snape wasn't so far out of line when he sneered at third year students not having studied werewolves yet -- maybe what they got from Lupin in third year was normally supposed to be the first-year curriculum. Jerri wrote in : << Take the Astronomy. Carol made some excellent points. If HRH were taking an Astronomy class at midnight or thereabouts one night a week, surely it would have interfered with a detention or late night homework or running around under the invisibility cloak >> Detention, homework, and escapades under the Invisibility Cloak are supposed to be finished by midnight. << or at least had them sleepy the next day. >> They're wizards. Maybe the Astronomy teacher casts a Be Alert Tomorrow charm on them at the end of class. Carol wrote in : << Black says in OoP, some things are worth dying for. (big snip) Aberforth, though he's an Order member, too, doesn't understand this philosophy. He thinks that Harry should save himself at the expense of everyone else. >> I don't think Aberforth believes that Harry should save his own life at the expense of everyone else, I think he thinks that Harry should save his own life at the expense of a plan that won't work anyway. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 01:56:16 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 01:56:16 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182682 > Alla: > > Look, do you agree that Boggart is like real Dementor in all effects > it has on the human being, except sucking the soul? > > Where do we see any other kid casting Patronus on real Dementor when > he is Harry's age. That's what I am trying to say is that I find it > bizarre that the fact that Harry IS able to do so somehow is being > used against him. Potioncat: I get it! It's round bush/ square bush. (sparing the rest of the list a mildly amusing anectdote) Nothing is being used against Harry. But I see now where we're diverging. The Boggart/dementor had a strong effect on Harry and it was very difficult to learn to cast a Patronus against it. Harry had to learn. He was being affected by the Dementors at Hogwarts. So yes, Harry deserves credit for learning this difficult spell. No doubt about it. While we agree (I think) that Harry is a standard wizarding student, he does have a predisposition for DADA. And with great effort, he learned to cast the Patronus. Personally, I think Lupin went about it all wrong. But we don't know how he learned or who taught him. Maybe adult wizards are taught with a real Dementor while other wizards are standing around ready to control it. Besides, Lupin earned his teaching creditials from the School of Dramatic Effect. Harry did a better job of teaching the spell. Lupin should have taught him to cast the spell, to cast it well, then to face the Boggart/Dementor. The point I'm making, and I think Carol as well, is that no other student gets the opportunity to face a Boggart/Dementor to practice on. So while they learn the spell under good circumstances, they aren't strong enough to cast it under the real situation. We don't know how they might have done under that stressful, but safe situation. Even with the special training, Harry also had the rare situation of seeing himself cast it before he did it. Not taking anything away from Harry, just saying the situation was quite unusual. > Alla: > > I see no proof that any thirteen year old COULD learn to do that, > that's my point. Sure, Hary did not manage from the first try, my > point is that I do not see anybody else who could have managed to do > so ON THE REAL DEMENTOR, since as far as I am concerned Boggart is > the same thing in its effects. Potioncat: Well, I think that a 15 year old could teach it to 14 and 15 year olds, shows that teens are able to learn it. I don't think any of the adult wizards would have expected that result. Besides, if Umbridge could cast one, and maintain it, then it can't be too difficult. Back to Boggarts. Everyone had to face their worst fear and cast a Ridikulus. Let me tell you. I would have had just as hard a time with facing a Boggart/Spider as Harry did with the Boggart/Dementor. They would have had to pick me up from the floor a few times before I was successful---if I ever was. So I think the students are able to learn a great deal with the right teacher. > > Alla: > My objection is to denying what Harry achieved, when his Es somehow > do not mean much, when his Patronus does not mean much, etc, etc. Potioncat: But Harry achieved a lot! No one is arguing that. From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Apr 28 02:25:03 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:25:03 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182683 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" wrote: > > Nikkalmati wrote: > > > > >The problem I am struggling with here is that Albus appears to be > willing to sacrifice other people for the good of the many. This is > part of Aberforth's problem with his brother. He is asking Harry if > he really knows what he is getting into. Of course, he doesn't - > Albus never told him. Albus knew Harry would be willling to go > forward at any cost, but was that fair? Albus' MO is to trap you into > a committment and then shame you into going on when you finally see > the handwriting on the wall. Not my idea of the highest moral standard. > > Carol responds: > > > With regard to Albus Dumbledore, it's true that he conceals > information from Harry, but it's unclear whether he really intends to > sacrifice him. Harry has to *think* that he's going to his death and > willingly sacrifice himself as his mother sacrificed herself for him > (but with a little more dignity and forethought), but Dumbledore knows > that Harry has a good chance of surviving. (He can't know that, or the > intent to sacrifice himself won't work.) In HBP, DD tells Harry that > he doesn't have to act on the Prophecy. It doesn't have to fulfill > itself unless he and Voldemort choose to face each other. And they > make that choice, LV because he wants to end the threat of the Chosen > One and Harry because, even if it means his own death, he wants > Voldemort permanently destroyed to pervent him from ruining any more > lives. > snip big snip > Yes, he was secretive. Yes, he was manipulative and controlling and > had a greater faith in his intellect and his plans than was perhaps > justified. But, IMO, he, not Aberforth, was right that sometimes the > individual must risk or even sacrifice his own life for the benefit of > others, whether it's a mother dying to save her child or a > seventeen-year-old boy facing an enemy only he can destroy. > > Carol, who thinks that the greater good motif is crucial to our > understanding of DH but suspects that it's one of those topics on > which our opinions wil remain divided > Nikkalmati My originnal question was whether JKR saw the dichotomy between the story she wrote and the story she thinks she wrote. MHO, of course. Your response describes the story as she intended the reader to see it, based on her own comments and apparent intent. I see another and much more morally complex story in which DD is far from "the epitomy of goodness" JKH once called him. (Does she really believe that?) His behavior is morally ambiguous at best and a good example of why one cannot leave it to one person to decide what is "the greater good". Arn't there some things one should never do even if one beleives good would result? DD refused to trust Harry to make the right decision and withheld vital information about the scar from Harry, so that by the time Harry knew the truth it would be too late for someone of Harry's disposition to back out. DD did not believe in the prophecy, so the only reason to encourage Harry to face LV, was so that LV would kill him and get rid of the soul bit in Harry. There was no reason some other plan could not have been devised to get rid of the Horcruxes and kill LV, except that someone had to kill Harry. Snape in his memory says "you used me" and that is exactly true. I am not sure why Snape didn't walk out at that point, unless he just had such a hatred of LV that he was willing to remain in his position regardless of DD's revelation that Harry had to die. DD did not trust himself to become Minister of Magic and I think he was correct in his self-evaluation. Note when he came upon the ring, he put it on, tempted by the desire to raise the dead. Even after 130 years of adulthood he has not learned to resist temptation. Also note that Aberforth, although he argued for self-interest to Harry, came through in the end and did a great deal to help the Order and defeat LV. Maybe Aberforth was right. In the long run, Harry was dispensable to Albus. Albus' secretive and manipulative nature also put all his plans in jepordy. How could he have gone to his death knowing that no one understood what he was trying to accomplish and believe that someone would figure it out in time? If he intended Snape to kill him and gain control of the wand, how did he expect that to happen? The events on the Tower were unexpected and unlooked for. Did he tell Snape about the wand - very unllikely based on DD's past behavior. What did he think would happen, if Snape became the master of such a potent weapon? Did DD plan for Snape to kill LV after Harry died? I agree that DD must have thought there was a chance for Harry to survive his encounter with LV, but he could not have been certain. He knew Harry had to die and he kept that information to himself for as long as humanly possible. Pride goeth before a fall. Nikkalmati From puduhepa98 at aol.com Mon Apr 28 02:37:33 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:37:33 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182684 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" wrote: > > --- "nikkalmati" wrote: > > > > --- "Steve" wrote: > > > snip > > >On some occasions human will sacrifices The Few to save The > > >Many, but on other occasion, quite illogically, humans will > > >sacrifice The Many to save The Few. > > > > >This was especially impressed on me when Aberforth and Harry > > >argue in 'Deathly Hallows' just before Harry and friends > > >enter Hogwarts castle. Harry in essence says that some causes > > >are so great and so true, and the need so real that indeed > > >the few must be willing to sacrifice themselves for the good, > > >or if you will the greater good, of the many. > > > >Nikkalmati > > > > The problem I am struggling with here is that Albus appears > > to be willing to sacrifice other people for the good of the > > many. This is part of Aberforth's problem with his brother. > > He is asking Harry if he really knows what he is getting into. > > Of course, he doesn't - Albus never told him. Albus knew > > Harry would be willing to go forward at any cost, but was > > that fair? Albus' MO is to trap you into a committment and > > then shame you into going on when you finally see the > > handwriting on the wall. Not my idea of the highest moral > > standard. > > > > >Nikkalmati > > > > bboyminn: > > Yes, but how many men did General Eisenhower send to their > deaths? How many men did General MacArthur sent to their > deaths? How many of those men didn't want to go, but went > anyway out of duty and loyalty? And how many of the deadly > operation were brutal strategic error in judgment? > snip Nikkalmati What DD has done to several people (Harry, Snape, Dung and probably others) was more like the Bay of Pigs, invasion where the US Government told the Cuban mercenaries they would have US aircover and then changed their minds after the invasion started, or the Gulf of Tonkin supposed attack on US warships by the North Vietnamese which, I guess, never happened the way it was reported. Somebody must have thought those decisions were "for the greater good." Nikkalmati From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 02:57:59 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:57:59 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182685 Potioncat wrote: > The point I'm making, and I think Carol as well, is that no other student gets the opportunity to face a Boggart/Dementor to practice on. So while they learn the spell under good circumstances, they aren't strong enough to cast it under the real situation. We don't know how they might have done under that stressful, but safe situation. > > Even with the special training, Harry also had the rare situation of seeing himself cast it before he did it. Not taking anything away from Harry, just saying the situation was quite unusual. Carol responds: Right. Of course, when Harry faces a hundred Dementors at once, not even Lupin's lessons with a Boggart!Dementor are sufficient preparation. But they do enable TT!Harry to cast a corporeal Patronus from a distance and scatter those same Dementors. I don't think he could have done that if he'd only practiced the incantation and mastered the spell. The hard part is not casting the corporeal Patronus, as we see in the RoR, lots of wizard kids can do it. The hard part is using it against real Dementors. That's where practicing against a realistic Dementor substitute helps Harry. Could the kids he taught in the RoR have fought off two Dementors in an alley? I don't think so, not because they're weaker or less gifted than Harry (Hermione is a very gifted young witch) but because, unlike him, they haven't had the opportunity to train with a realistic Dementor substitute that sucks out the happiness needed to conjure the Patronus. I'm not disparaging Harry. I'm just saying that it's lucky for him he had that Dementor!Boggart, or he would probably have had his soul sucked in PoA. Unless, of course, the caster of the doe Patronus woke up in time to save him. > > > Alla: > > My objection is to denying what Harry achieved, when his Es somehow do not mean much, when his Patronus does not mean much, etc, etc. > > Potioncat: > But Harry achieved a lot! No one is arguing that. > Carol: Exactly. No one, including me, is saying that Harry's Patronus "doesn't mean much," only that his training with a Boggart Dementor prepared him to face real Dementors more effectively than learning to cast them in the RoR prepared his friends, as Harry says himself, because he knows what it feels like to have his happiness sucked out and knows that he can cast the spell in spite of that. As for his E's not meaning much, that isn't what I said, or at least isn't what I meant. My question is how either he or Ron could learn anything other than spell-casting and practical potion-making with Hermione doing their homework for them. Can a student really learn from copying another student's essay? I don't think so, and if they'd been caught doing that in a Muggle school, all three of them would have suffered serious consequences. I think that Harry has above-average intelligence and a reasonable amount of magical talent, exceptional Quidditch skills, great courage, the ability to think on his feet (in contrast to the panic-prone Hermione), loyal friends, and a lot of luck. And, of course, he has "the power that the Dark Lord knows not" (love, or rather, the ability to love despite the hardships he's undergone, as DD says in HBP) and the powers that Voldemort has inadvertently given him, Parseltongue and the scar connection, which make him a formidable enemy to Voldemort from an early age. Harry tells Hermione in DH that it was his wand acting on its own, not his own exceptional powers, that caused the wand to fire at Voldemort. He tells Dumbledore that he doesn't have "uncommon skill and power," to which DD replies that he can love (509) and that LV doesn't understand "the incomparable power of a soul that is untarnished and pure" (511). He tells Ron and Hermione in OoP that all the things he's done are the result of luck: "I didn't get through any of that because I ws brilliant at Defense Against the Dark Arts. I got through it all because--because help came at the right time, or because I guessed right" (OoP am. ed. 527). And in DH, after Harry says that Ron saved his life, retrieved the Sword of Gryffindor, and destroyed the Horcrux, Ron says, "That makes me sound a lot cooler than I was," to which Harry replies, "Stuff like that always sounds cooler than it really was. "I've been trying to tell you that for years" (379). Harry's powers don't even register in the boat in the cave. He has nowhere near Dumbledore's (or Voldemort's) knowledge and power. And yet Voldemort can't possess him because the "power that Voldemort knows not" is the strongest of all. And Harry defeats Voldemort, not through power and skill, but through self-sacrifice. I think we should listen to Harry, and to Dumbledore. Harry, despite certain unusual gifts and powers, is the archetypal ordinary person (by wizarding standards) who triumphs against great evil through selflessness and courage and friends and luck. And that is an admirable accomplishment. Carol, who thinks that Harry's triumph is all the more remarkable because it doesn't involve the flashy magic that his friends expected him to learn in HBP From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 03:56:20 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 03:56:20 -0000 Subject: GG and Durmstrang In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182686 Carol earlier: > > << As you say, we don't know what Gellert did to get himself expelled from Durmstrang, but if Durmstrang deserves its reputation as a school that teaches the Dark Arts (presumably using teachers with considerably more intelligence and subtlety than Amycus Carrow), he must have done something dark and dreadful or else endangered a large number of people. I doubt that he killed anyone or he'd have been imprisoned rather than expelled. >> Catlady: > The author obviously wanted us to think, what could be horrible enough to break *Durmstrang* rules? One imagines that even a Dark Arts school would have rules against students practising AK on each other or teachers or staff, but would they have a rule against practising AK on a Muggle, as long as the Statute of Secrecy was well defended by making it look to all the Muggles that the guy died of cold or of falling of off a cliff? Maybe they allow students to practise Cruiciatus and Imperius on each other, thus giving the opportunity to practise dodging and parrying and resisting. Carol responds: I wish I knew, but unfortunately, we see only a handful of Durmstrang students, and only one, Viktor Krum, in any detail. We see that Karkaroff, the headmaster, pampers his protegee, worrying about his head cold (and, of course, finding out what the first task is in the hope of giving him an advantage--in marked contrast to DD, who in this book, at least, gives no overt help to his favorite student until after Harry returns from the graveyard). The only thing I recall him saying to any other of his students other than Viktor is the sharp reprimand to Poliakoff, the "disgusting boy" who spilled food on his robes. (Sidenote: I don't think that Karkaroff attended Durmstrang himself; I think he's a former Slytherin. He speaks perfect English, in any case, unlike his students or Madame Maxime.) It's natable, however, that neither Viktor or Poliakoff seems at all Dark Wizardish (until Viktor is Imperiused, but he's sorry afterwards). *And* Viktor Krum is adamantly opposed to even the memory of Grindelwald. It seems to me unlikely that Durmstrang actually teaches the Unforgiveable Curses despite its reputation for teaching Dark magic. Krum has certainly learned the usual DADA spells needed to get through the maze and fend off "zee grindylows," he uses the Conjunctivitis Curse (which Sirius Black intended to recommend to Harry) on his dragon, and he uses an incomplete shark-man Transfiguration (a complete one would have left him without hands to use a wand or release Hermione) in the second task, so apparently he's had quite a good magical education (not to mention Quidditch training). Yes, he could cast a Cruciatus Curse under Imperius, but since Harry and Draco both attempt that curse and Harry succeeds in using it in DH, I don't think we can conclude that he learned it at school. If those curses are actually taught, it's probably to a select group of seventh years who aren't likely to practice them on each other in the corridors. And, of course, they wouldn't use AK on each other or their teachers. At any rate, we know Durmstrang only by reputation through remarks by Draco and Rita Skeeter. It produced Gellert Grindelwald, but it also produced Viktor Krum. Hogwarts produced Harry Potter, but it also produced Voldemort--and the young Albus Dumbledore, whose ideas meshed so neatly with Gellert Grindelwald's. Catlady quotes: > "[W]here we meet resistance, We must use only the force that is > necessary and no more. (This was your mistake at Durmstrang[.)]" (US p357) > > Take it literally - he met resistance and used too much force trying to get his own way. Carol: Yes. Exactly. But we're not told what he wanted or what kind of force he used. Coercion through torture? He seems to have done that as an adult, and we know that he used the Cruciatus Curse on Albus's young brother, Aberforth. Maybe that's what he did at school. Maybe even Durmstrang doesn't allow the use of the curse on fellow students (and what he did outside of school would not have gotten him expelled). Catlady: It could be Gellaert had recruited other students to help him search for the Deathly Hallows and Eurmstrang's professor of History of Magic ordered him to stop leading the other children into delusion, told him that the Deathly Hallows are nothing but a child's tale, they don't really exist and if they did exist, they couldn't cause earthly immortality. That would be resistance. > If he simply told the teacher 'You're wrong', that would be talking back, and earn some punishment. If he carved the DH symbol. very large, on a wall, that would be graffiti as well as disobedience. Carol: I doubt that he would have shared the secret of the Deathly Hallows with his fellow students. If he wore the symbol as Xenophilius Lovegood does and carved it as graffiti, as we know he did in one instance, I don't think it was with the desire to invite people to help him search for treasures they'd be likely to keep for themselves if they found. I think it was a sign for fellow initiates into the mysteries of the Hallows to recognize, but no one else. I also don't think it was the teachers who resisted his will. Nor do I think he'd be expelled for producing "graffiti," even of a lasting kind. He was apparently expelled for using too much force on whoever resisted his will. (He could have Crucio'd a teacher. *that* would have gotten him thrown out, I think.) Carol earlier: >> << He and Albus as boys imagine themselves as co-rulers, but only one can wield the One Ring--erm, the Elder Wand. >> Catlady: > It would be interesting for Magical Theory to find out if the Three Hallows can be owned collectively by two people in such a way that they both get immortality. It would be interesting for Magical Theory to find out if the Elder Wand can be owned collectively by two people in such a way that each of gets super-wizard power when using it. Of course, the personality of the Elder Wand, like that of the One Ring, is such that it would tempt, urge, and seduce the one holding it not to let the other have a turn, and tempt, urge, and seduce the other to kill his friend just to get his turn. Carol responds: I agree, which is why I made the comparison. It would be like Smeagol killing Deagol on a larger scale. And I wonder whether DD hesitated to fight GG not out of a lingering affection for him but out of fear that he would want the Elder Wand for himself, tempted by its power and becoming a second Grindelwald. It's just a thought. But I can't imagine the Elder Wand, fickle though it is (in contrast to the One Ring, which is loyal only to Sauron) dividing its allegiance between two masters, nor can I imagine two wizards, however great their friendship, agreeing to share it. Catlady: > But few people seem to have trouble believing that a man and a woman who are something like married can claw their way to power as a team and then wield power as a team, without falling out over which of them gets to be top boss. If it were Greta Grindelwald, would you be as certain tney couldn't share rulership and the Elder Wand? Carol: The sex of the people involved has nothing to do with it. Imagine a Bellatrix who rivaled Voldemort in power and evil. She might still worship him, but would he have shared the Elder Wand with her? And if she found it and realized that she could be the most powerful Wizard (in the generic sense of magical person) in the WW, would she share it with him or become his rival? (If she did offer to share it, it's a foregone conclusion that she wouldn't get it back.) Carol, who thinks that the primary concern for Durmstrang students is probably keeping warm in winter! From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 06:34:49 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:34:49 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182687 > Carol, who thinks that Harry's triumph is all the more remarkable > because it doesn't involve the flashy magic that his friends expected > him to learn in HBP > Montavilla47: I quite agree, Carol. Which is why I wish--partly from a storytelling view, partly from the commonsense one--that Dumbledore had put someone on the Horcrux-Destroying team who did have some of that "flashy magic." Or advanced skills in D.A.D.A. Dumbledore gave Harry a lot of information that was helpful in finding the Horcruxes (which, luckily, weren't protected by the extraordinary curses and enchantments that the locket and ring were protected by), and NO information about how to destroy them. Undoubtably, that would have come after Snape rescued DD from being poisoned--had that happened. I suppose Dumbledore expected Harry could just whack at the Horcurxes with the Sword of Gryffindor--forgetting that the sword wasn't his to bequeath to a single student and that it did belong to the school itself. But I really don't get it. We know that there are *three* members of the Order who have the chops to help Harry in Horcrux-hunting. One of those is Snape. Okay, granted, Snape has something else important to do, which is to protect the school and keep a lookout for Voldemort to start protecting his snake. Plus, Harry hates Snape and Snape hates Harry and having them work together in OotP wasn't such a hot idea. Then, there's Lupin. The dispensible Lupin. Okay, Lupin is supposed to be infiltrating the werewolves or something, but as we know that never did a lick of good to anyone. Was Dumbledore so cowed by Tonks's frequent trips to his office to whine about Lupin that he kept Lupin out of the loop? Or was he unsure of Lupin's loyalty because of that whole lying-to-DD-about Sirius stuff? Does he trust Lupin or not? If he doesn't, why keep him around? If he does, then why not give Harry the benefit of someone with no real ties to others (since Tonks and Lupin were "on a break" as far as Dumbeldore knew) and with knowledge about the Dark Arts? But, even if Lupin can't be trusted, there's still Bill Weasley, the CURSE-BREAKER! Why the hell is he puttering around Shell Cottage when he could be saving the world? Okay, yeah, Bill is engaged to be married, but Lily and James had to have been fighting Voldemort on their honeymoon with all the time they had leaving school and dying. It wasn't until Lily was actually pregnant (according to the extra-canonical interviews) that she stopped actively fighting the Death Eaters. Three experienced wizards who could have joined the Horcrux hunt as easily as the Trio did, and who had loads more experience and knowledge than Harry (and probably even Hermione). Can you imagine how much faster that hunt could have gone if Dumbledore had used all three? Especially since Bill had connections to Gringott's. Who would have been a better wizard to help plan a break-in? In a sense this is a silly thing for me to be bemoaning. The story wasn't about being clever. It was, like all the plots, about manipulating things so that Harry is in certain places at certain times, and experiences certain things. But, really, having a former D.A.D.A. teacher with Death Eater connections, who spends his summers entombed with Dark Arts' books... and an already ostracized former D.A.D.A. teacher with plenty of Dark Arts chops, AND a curse-breaker who works for the bank that is safeguarding a Horcrux and never using them... It's like having a roomful of guns onstage and never having one go off in the third act. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 12:18:56 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:18:56 -0000 Subject: James and Sirius - "Coolness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182688 > > Carol responded: > > What does JKR think is "cool"? > > Lupin, IIRC, says that [Sirius] and James were "the height of > > cool." I don't want to second-guess JKR, but if Lupin is right, > > if most of the students (except, probably, the Slytherins) > > regarded a pair of "arrogant little berks" as "cool," their > > judgment is (IMO) sadly lacking. (I know that Mike disagrees > > with me; possibly JKR does as well.) Potioncat: Oh, I hate the way the posts line up! I'd like to read the entire post from the snipped section, but I don't have time to read evey post Carol wrote to find it. GRRRRR. I agree with Carol's opinion of James and Sirius. But I don't think most of the students thought James and Sirius were cool. The coolness comment comes from Lupin, who goes out of his way to be nice, who praises easily and doesn't like to rock the boat. >From the expressions in crowd in SWM, quite a few onlookers weren't thinking "Gee, these guys are cool." They were thinking, "I hope I'm not next." > > Mike: > > People like to point to the detentions and the hexing in the hallways > as defining their characters. Well, hexing in the hallways is what > wizarding kids do. It's not permanent, it's just their form of > slapstick humor. Look at the condition of Draco and company after the > DA responds on the Hogwarts Express at the end of OotP. If these were > normal humans with normal methods of fighting, we'd see Draco's > condition as worse than death. Yet he's back and fine at the start of > HBP. Hexing in the hallways is fun and games for wizard kids. Potioncat: Who do we hear of who hexes in the hallways for the fun of it? James and Harry (HBP). We hear of a Quidditch rivalry that grew to such hexing proportions students were sent to the hosptial wing. But that was between Slytherin to Griffindor. And as for the DA incidnet--- Draco was threatening Harry and Harry's friends stepped in. That wasn't hexing for fun. (Although those casting the spells might have enjoyed it.) I'm not excusing the Slytherin-Griffindor Quidditch rivalry hexing. Just saying it had a purpose, not random fun. > Mike: > Does arrogance define them? I don't think so, I think their talents > define them. The fact that they could become Animagi at such a young > age and hide it right under the crooked nose of Albus Dumbledore > (read: they did it on their own) when it's supposed to be a dangerous > transformation if done wrong, speaks to their talents. Their talents > must be apparent to all the other young wizards. They are above > average, maybe way above average, in the one thing that other witches > and wizards on a whole look up to; magical abilities. That, above all > else, is what makes them "cool". Potioncat: Here is where we come closer to an agreement. I think these were bright, good looking---good at heart kids. So some of their misbehaviors were overlooked. That is, misbehavior was punished, but not seen as defining who they were. By those who liked them, anyway. The others probably did define them by their actions. Kids who aren't good looking or who aren't so personable can't get away with these things. > Mike: But why does he have to be > locked up in the Shack when we never hear of any other werewolves > having to be locked up on full moon nights? Potioncat: Because they've been made to live in the forest, away from people. > > > Mike: > I can't possibly conceive of how Sirius going to the MoM to help > Harry (in OotP) was reckless, no matter what Snape said. Potioncat: It was reckless from several standpoints. LV could have used him against Harry---for real. Who knew how the situation would play out--Sirius could have ended up back in Azkaban just because of who he was. His taunting of Bella in the middle of a battle was reckless. Now, I'll admit, there's a tradition of liking a hero who's a little reckless. As far as I'm concerned, recklessness would go along with the bravery of Griffindors. But too much of it would be a bad thing. I don't think I'd want to be in a battle with a reckless companion-- or at least not one who would be reckless in battle. >Mike: > So that's another thing I disagree with JKR on. Or do I? I like the > Marauders, so I am biased. But I don't find them to be egregiously > bullying nor overly arrogant nor, in the case of Sirius, ridiculously > reckless. But maybe JKR only painted the picture and is allowing me > to interpret it in anyway I like. Potioncat: There have been many many discussions about the Marauders and bullying. And it seems to me, that there are two main camps. Those who think that type of behavior in general is OK and those who don't. It seems to line up according to how people were in high school. Those who more often played such jokes or enjoying watching such jokes seem to like the Marauders and those who were sometimes the butt of such jokes, or didn't like such humor, don't care for the boys. > Mike, who will continue to defend his Marauder buddies, cuz JKR has > allowed me to think of them as real people by transporting me > successfully into the Potterverse. Potioncat: And this is the other part of it. We often excuse behavior of friends when we wouldn't accept it from a non-friend. And certainly not from an enemy. I was very confused at a comment JKR made about Pansy. JKR identified Pansy as the girl-bully who had picked on her in school. Therefore, Pansy didn't get Draco. (There! That'll show you!) Yet JKR doesn't seem to think James and Sirius need any punishment. When my friends are bullies, they're just letting off steam. When your friends are bullies, they're bad. From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 13:09:01 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:09:01 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182689 "montavilla47" wrote: > But, even if Lupin can't be trusted, there's still Bill Weasley, the > CURSE-BREAKER! Why the hell is he puttering around Shell > Cottage when he could be saving the world? Potioncat: That reminds me of DH days. We did have high hopes for Bill and Charley. Perfectly placed Weasleys who would be important to Harry later on. And when one DH cover was leaked...a roomful of treasure and a dragon...surely Charley and Bill would come into their own. Ah, the good old days of speculation... From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 13:32:07 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:32:07 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182690 The Coolness thread made me think of youth and school and a parent's perspective. You send your kid off to the next level of school, hoping they'll make friends. You don't want them at the mercy of a clique, but you want them to find their niche. (Those kids have a clique, my kid has a circle of friends.) The kids themselves go off hoping they'll make friends, that they'll know someone in their class, that they'll fit in. So, with that in mind, here's the question. If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to fit in? Why? Not, where would you be sorted or want to be sorted although that could be part of it. Rather, which group of kids would you want to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters would you be most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups appeal to you in the beginning of the series, but with whom you wouldn't want to belong later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) You can choose from any of the generations. Support your choices with canon, or we'll have to go behind the greenhouses to discuss it. Potioncat From beatrice23 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 14:55:48 2008 From: beatrice23 at yahoo.com (Beatrice23) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 14:55:48 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182691 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Beatrice23" wrote: > > *Snip* (or perhaps more accurately *snipe* > > > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since > you > > agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a > > real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy > > Beatrice: ROTFLMOA. Is this your real argument? > > "'Thank you very much, Professor Umbridge, that was most > illuminating,' he said bowing to her....(OotP 214) > > > >Carol responds: >Actually, my "real argument" can be found upthread, complete with >extensive canon citations. >And, FWIW, your logic escapes me as does the relevance of your remark. >As for courtesy . . . >Carol, who sees nothing to laugh about Beatrice Apologizes: First, it pains me to list the above response, but I do owe you an apology Carol. I misread your signature on the above post and responded with a rude post. Please accept my sincere apology. This is not an excuse, but I read the end of your post under odd circumstances and responded to it under those same conditions and I hope you know that even as we disagree (and we frequently do) that I respect your opinions and enjoy the ensuing discussions. Okay, so now I will contribute something more intelligent to the discussion: >Alla: >I am not Beatrice, but since I find Carol's argument about Boggart >quite weak myself, I am going to try and explain why and maybe my >reasoning is the same as Beatrice or maybe not. >I believe that fact that Harry had a training with Boggart who >immitates the Real Dementor has no bearing whatsoever on Harry's >ability to cast the patronus. >Harry had lessons, sure he did, as Beatrice had showed IMO we see at >least hints that other kids have private lessons with other teachers. >But what we do not see anywhere in my opinion is ANY kid having >lessons with Boggart!Dementor and being able to do so. In fact, Lupin says that it is extraordinary achievement for thirteen year old, mind you he thinks it is extraordinary that Harry managed to do it even with the Boggart!Dementor, doesn't he? >So this is the part of the argument I find ridiculous - how exactly the fact that Harry casts it upon the Boggart!Dementor somehow downplays his accomplishment. Boggart Dementor immitates all the effects of real Dementor after all, except being able to suck out the happiness and Harry manages fine eventually. Beatrice: I agree and another thought occurred to me. In the majority of the other circumstances, Umbridge's patronus in particular, the patronus is cast merely to protect the caster and others from the affects of the presence of Dementors. For all we know, Umbridge casts her patronus BEFORE the dementor enters the room or even gets anywhere near her. This may also be the case for many other people who deal with magical law enforcement. Even the talking patronus (or would it be patroni?) are not cast under the affects of dementors in the immediate area. Continuing with Umbridge for a moment: unlike Harry, she has advanced notice that the dementors are / will be present. Harry, on the other hand, casts his Dementor under extraordinary circumstances (okay ? thankfully he has practice with some really good controls). In PoA, OotP, and DH, Harry is attacked, not simply (although I know that it is hardly benign, but there is a difference) experiencing the affect of having a dementor near him. Being attacked is something that even Fudge sees as unusual (PoA). And he is repeatedly attacked, even prisoners in Azakaban aren't necessarily assaulted in the way that Harry is (unless they are sentenced to be kissed ? even then it only happens once) rather prisoners are continually subjected to the affects of the Dementors without being surprised to find them outside a muggle park, on Hogwarts grounds, etc. (where usually one only encounters them in Azkaban or under ministry arrest (at least until LV comes back out in the open in HBP). Alla > Potioncat: > But it had all the bearing in the world! If Boggarts could be made to > create that same effect for all the kids, then it could have been > used for all of them. It was only Harry who reacted the same way to > his Boggart as he did to a Dementor. In fact, Harry reacted more > strongly to Dementors than other kids did. >Alla: >Look, do you agree that Boggart is like real Dementor in all effects >it has on the human being, except sucking the soul? >Where do we see any other kid casting Patronus on real Dementor when >he is Harry's age. That's what I am trying to say is that I find it >bizarre that the fact that Harry IS able to do so somehow is being >used against him. Alla: I see no proof that any thirteen year old COULD learn to do that, that's my point. Sure, Hary did not manage from the first try, my point is that I do not see anybody else who could have managed to do so ON THE REAL DEMENTOR, since as far as I am concerned Boggart is the same thing in its effects. > > Alla: > > Harry had lessons, sure he did, as Beatrice had showed IMO we see > at > > least hints that other kids have private lessons with other > teachers. > > Potioncat: > Sure, and that's a good point. Harry is like most other kids. James, > Sirius, Severus and Hermione, however, taught themselves magic beyond > their years. > Beatrice: Well, true but it also sounds like James, et al had each other. In fact, it was generally accepted that Peter could never have become an Animangus without James and Sirius. Even Snape seemed to be hanging out with a dark crowd. All of them may have been working together to create spells / curses to use as weapons. But don't forget Harry's DADA lessons in his fifth year. Not only does he teach a lot of different and difficult spells, he even teaches those spells to older more experienced students, some of whom are widely acknowledged to be pretty inventive themselves (the Weasley twins, Ernie MacMillian, Cho, Hermione, etc.). Again, I remind you that I am not saying that Harry is brilliant, but I think that his accomplishments do occasionally outshine his "natural abilities." Alla: I never argued that Harry is the same as Hermione or Dumbledore. But I maintain that Patronus is a magic beyond his years, but of course he is not in Dumbledore or Hermione's league. My objection is to denying what Harry achieved, when his Es somehow do not mean much, when his Patronus does not mean much, etc, etc. JMO, Beatrice: My point exactly. I also think that his OWL exams speak pretty well of his skills as a wizard. Even where her performs poorly, it is under difficult circumstances (Hagrid's attack, LV's "vision," and the ridiculous subject of Divination) . Also in Harry's defense here, the Weasley twins were generally acknowledged to be pretty poor students and yet no one would deny that they are VERY talented. Beatrice: Contrite and back to a real discussion. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 15:36:33 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:36:33 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182692 > > > Carol, who doesn't understand your objection to her argument since you agree that the Boggart sucks Harry's happiness as effectively as a real Dementor without placing his soul in jeopardy Beatrice apologized: > First, it pains me to list the above response, but I do owe you an apology Carol. I misread your signature on the above post and responded with a rude post. Please accept my sincere apology. This is not an excuse, but I read the end of your post under odd circumstances and responded to it under those same conditions and I hope you know that even as we disagree (and we frequently do) that I respect your opinions and enjoy the ensuing discussions. Carol responds: Thank you, Beatrice. I really didn't appreciate being compared to Umbridge, or having you cast yourself in the role of Snape to chide me for some imagined offense. (I'm a Snape supporter. It's like using the HBP's curses on Snape. ) And your reaction to my wholly innocuous sig line was, forgive my saying so, simply incomprehensible. I understand now, and I not only accept your apology but apologize in turn for overreacting. All I meant by my sig line was, "Since you agree with me that the Boggart!Dementor was an effective substitute for a real one, could you please explain where you disagree with me?" I was, and am, genuinely confused on that point. I've tried to clarify that I am not disparaging Harry. I think it's a good thing that he trained on a real Boggart rather than merely learning to cast a Patronus, or he'd most likely have lost his soul at the end of PoA. > >Alla: > > >I am not Beatrice, but since I find Carol's argument about Boggart >quite weak myself, I am going to try and explain why and maybe my >reasoning is the same as Beatrice or maybe not. > > >So this is the part of the argument I find ridiculous - how exactly the fact that Harry casts it upon the Boggart!Dementor somehow downplays his accomplishment. Carol responds: I also don't much appreciate having my canon-supported argument described as "ridiculous" by a List Elf, of all people. Disagreement and counterarguments are one thing; but disparaging someone's carefully expressed and canon-supported arguments is another. However, the "ridiculous" argument is one I never made. I am not in any way downplaying Harry's accomplishment. I am saying that practicing on the nearest thing to a real Dementor gave Harry a very realistic experience that enabled him to deal with a real Dementor more effectively. He knew what it felt like to have his happiness sucked out, and he found the strength or courage or whatever it was within himself to sustain the happy memory required to cast a Patronus in the face of a highly realistic Boggart Dementor trying to suck out that happiness. Had he not had the good luck to have such a Boggart to train on, he would not, IMO, have been able to cast the Patronus that saved him and Sirius and probably Hermione as well. Carol, casting her own Riddikulus spell and bowing out of this "Riddikulus" argument From montavilla47 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 15:57:42 2008 From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com (montavilla47) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:57:42 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182693 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "potioncat" wrote: > > The Coolness thread made me think of youth and school and a parent's > perspective. You send your kid off to the next level of school, > hoping they'll make friends. You don't want them at the mercy of a > clique, but you want them to find their niche. (Those kids have a > clique, my kid has a circle of friends.) The kids themselves go off > hoping they'll make friends, that they'll know someone in their > class, that they'll fit in. > > So, with that in mind, here's the question. > > If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to fit > in? Why? Not, where would you be sorted or want to be sorted although > that could be part of it. Rather, which group of kids would you want > to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters would you be > most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups appeal to you in the > beginning of the series, but with whom you wouldn't want to belong > later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) > > You can choose from any of the generations. Support your choices > with canon, or we'll have to go behind the greenhouses to discuss it. > > Potioncat > Montavilla47: I think I'd like to hang out with the Hufflepuffs, myself. The only problem is that they seem to be the redshirts in the story, but that Cedric Diggory was fine! And he was nice. I also like the Slytherins and, if I were smart enough to be ambitious, I would appreciate that whole golden pass into life you get through the Slug Club. Also, the Slytherins are probably the most likely to have a drama club and I hung out with the drama kids. I never much cared for the jocks, so I think I'd stay away from the Griffyndors. But I have always liked Neville, so I think if I were in Harry's generation, I'd want to hang out with him. Seamus and Dean also seem nice. I might like the girls, but I'm not nearly as girly as they seem to be, (the giggling and boy talk and all that), so I would have, like Hermione, sought out the boys for friendship. But, alpha male boys are no fun at all. So, not Harry and not Draco. From elfundeb at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 16:01:55 2008 From: elfundeb at gmail.com (Debbie) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:01:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182694 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 ---------------------------------------------------------- After last chapter's discussion led by special guest Harry himself, this week we will, regrettably, be turning back to our listmembers to lead the discussion. (For the record, Ron Weasley was asked to stand in, but he refused, muttering under his breath about being "second best, always, eternally overshadowed"). --------------------------------------------------------- CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 19, The Silver Doe The chapter opens at midnight, December 26th, with Hermione taking over the watch. Harry sleeps fitfully, convinced that he heard voices outside the tent, and finally suggests to Hermione that they leave early. Hermione, who also thought she had heard voices, agrees. Under cover of the Invisibility Cloak, they decamp to the Forest of Dean. After huddling around Hermione's blue flames all day for warmth, Harry takes the evening watch. He is unable to shake the feeling that something is different tonight. Harry dozes and awakes several times to velvety blackness. While searching for his hand in the inky blackness, Harry spots a bright silver light, moving soundlessly through the trees toward him. Stepping out from the trees, the light reveals itself as a silver doe. Harry finds the doe, inexplicably, familiar, and strongly believes the doe has come for him. The doe turns away and walks through the trees. Harry, instinctively deciding the doe is not Dark Magic, follows as the doe leads him into the forest. Finally, the doe stops and vanishes. Momentarily fearful, Harry lights his wand and notices a small frozen pool. Looking through the ice, he realizes that the sword of Gryffindor is at the bottom of the pool. After scanning the forest in a futile attempt to discern who could have brought the sword, Harry realizes he must retrieve it himself. Harry removes his sweaters, breaks the ice and dives in with, he supposes, true Gryffindor daring, nerve and (perhaps) chivalry. He manages to grab the sword despite the agony of the icy cold water, but at that moment the chain of the Horcrux begins to strangle him, and, expecting Death, he loses consciousness. . . . Harry comes to lying face down in the snow. The Horcrux is gone. He hears another person panting and coughing. When the person asks, "Are you mental?" Harry recognizes Ron's voice. Ron is holding the locket in one hand and the sword, which he had evidently retrieved from the pool, in the other. Ron explains that he had been looking for Harry for hours when he saw the doe, followed by Harry. Ron also tells Harry he thought he saw someone move between two tree trunks while he was running to the pool to rescue Harry. Harry looks but sees no footprints or other signs. The Horcrux is twitching and Harry concludes that the sword's presence has agitated it. He tells Ron that he should destroy the Horcrux because he retrieved the sword. Ron demurs, asserting that he can't do it because he's too susceptible to the locket's powers, but Harry insists. Harry opens the locket using Parseltongue. Ron holds the sword ready, but backs away as the Horcrux taunts Ron with his worst fears -- that he is nothing, that his mother would have preferred a daughter, or Harry, that Hermione prefers Harry to him. As the images inside the locket transform to an embracing Ron and Hermione, Ron, his eyes now traced with scarlet, finally plunges the sword through the locket and the images disappear. Ron falls to his knees, shaking, and drops the sword. Harry reassures Ron that Hermione is a sister to him, and reveals that she cried for days when Ron left. Ron responds by apologizing for leaving. Harry tells Ron he has made up for it by saving Harry's life, and they hug. Together Harry and Ron go back to the tent, where they wake up Hermione. Hermione responds to Ron's presence by punching him, prompting Harry to cast a Shield Charm to keep them apart. Ron is finally able to explain that he tried to return right away, but encountered a gang of Snatchers rounding up Muggle-borns. Ron escaped the Snatchers (with a spare wand), but by the time he returned to the riverbank, Harry and Hermione had decamped. Hermione expresses derision at Ron's tale of woe. Ron then explains how he heard Hermione's voice through the Deluminator on Christmas Day and used it to find their location, and followed them to the Forest of Dean. Only after a full explanation for Hermione's benefit of the destruction of the Horcrux (minus the locket's tormenting of Ron), does Harry remove the Shield Charm. Ron gives Harry his spare wand to replace the one broken at Godric's Hollow, Hermione goes back to bed, and Ron concludes that his return has been received as well as he could have hoped for. Harry reminds him of the birds Hermione set on him in HBP. Hermione shouts from her bed that she hasn't ruled it out, but Ron is smiling. --------------------------------------------- Questions 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all this time? Why is he willing to do this? 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did not attempt to identify the doe? 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? 4. The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian legend. JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and reworking those legends for her own purposes. Is that what happened here? Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur? If so, how? And what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who succeeded in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor? 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to torment him instead? 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the torturing? 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before he destroys the locket Horcrux? 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? 9. As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had cost them." What was the cost? How did Ron's absence affect their progress? How does his return change things? 10. Harry concludes that Ron's return went about as well as possible, despite Hermione's reaction. Do you agree? Why? What purpose did that exchange serve? 11. This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the subtext is all Snape. Is there a connection between these two characters? How are they alike. To what extent are their differences the result of circumstances rather than character? Debbie with thanks to zgirnius for her review and very helpful comments From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 16:35:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:35:24 -0000 Subject: James and Sirius - "Coolness" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182695 Carol earlier: > > > What does JKR think is "cool"? Lupin, IIRC, says that [Sirius] and James were "the height of cool." I don't want to second-guess JKR, but if Lupin is right, if most of the students (except, probably, the Slytherins) regarded a pair of "arrogant little berks" as "cool," their judgment is (IMO) sadly lacking. (I know that Mike disagrees with me; possibly JKR does as well.) > > Potioncat: > Oh, I hate the way the posts line up! I'd like to read the entire > post from the snipped section, but I don't have time to read evey > post Carol wrote to find it. GRRRRR. Carol responds: Me, too. and I hate the way snipping tends to focus on some side issue or parenthetical comment and the main point gets lost. And if you try to go back to find the main point and can't because of "the way the posts line up," the stupid search engine is busy. I did, however, manage to find the post in question, which related to Harry's scar and JKR's remark that the shape was "cool." The original poster commented that the meaning of the comment depended on what JKR thought was cool. And, while I think there's a lot more to the scar than the "cool" shape, I wanted to go in a new direction, posing the other poster's remark as a question, "What does JKR mean by 'cool'?" Mike chose to focus on my side remark to him and in consequence snipped my discussion of the way Harry's view of "coolness" seems to change in the books, away from those "arrogant little berks" and their bullying, and even the Marauder's map and their ability to become Animagi, neither of which had anything to do with their fellow students' view of them as "the height of cool" (assuming that the judgment is accurate, and judging from the apprehensive expressions of some of the spectators in the SWM, I think it was probably mostly Gryffindors who held that opinion). Anyway, Harry's opinion shifts so that by HBP, he starts to understand that loony Luna and nerdy Neville are a lot cooler, in terms of having admirable qualities and being worth knowing, than the likes of teenage Sirius and James. Here's a quote from my original post if you're still interested: "I think she defines the slang term ["cool"] pretty much as anyone would, meaning something like "admirable" or "fashionable": the "cool" kids are the popular kids that everyone wants to be seen with; a "cool" broomstick is the one that everyone wants to buy. of course, JKR is referring to the shape of the scar, not the scar itself, as "cool," so I think she means that a lightning bolt is more exciting, maybe more manly (even though he's a kid) than a circle or a smudge or a flower or a heart. "Anyway, to get back to your remark. What does JKR think is "cool"? Lupin, IIRC, says that Harry and James were "the height of cool." I don't want to second-guess JKR, but if Lupin is right, if most of the students (except, probably, the Slytherins) regarded a pair of "arrogant little berks" as "cool," their judgment is (IMO) sadly lacking. (I know that Mike disagrees with me; possibly JKR does as well.) Harry, sitting with Luna and Neville and Ginny on the train, is embarrassed when Cho walks in and finds them all covered in stinksap. Harry wishes that he were with a group of "cool" kids, all of them laughing at something that he said, rather than a "loony" girl who wears spectrespecs and butterbeer-cap necklaces, a forgetful boy who's always losing his toad or carrying around odd plants, and Ron's little sister. I think it's significant that he revises his view of them when he gets to know them better. (Ginny, perhaps, doesn't count, because she's popular and "cheeky" and pretty and so would count as "cool" in the opinion of most of her classmates, but Harry learns that Luna and Neville are much "cooler" than they appear to be, brave and loyal and valuable in themselves, however "dotty" and eccentric or forgetful and chubby they may be." You can find the whole post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182658 if you're interested, but the part following the aside to Mike is probably the most important section. Potioncat: > > I agree with Carol's opinion of James and Sirius. But I don't think most of the students thought James and Sirius were cool. The coolness comment comes from Lupin, who goes out of his way to be nice, who praises easily and doesn't like to rock the boat. Carol: Right. It may have been his own opinion, but as I said above, I'm not sure that it was as widespread as Lupin thinks. Of course, the Gryffindors would love him as long as he was scoring goals and helping them to win games (Harry's popularity fluctuates as much according to his Quidditch wins as according to what the Daily Prophet is saying), and I'm pretty sure that his habit of hexing people who annoyed him in the hallways kept a lot of people who didn't want their heads blown up to twice normal size from expressing their real view of him (an "arrogant little toerag" if I recall Lily's words correctly. And Sirius was handsome, causing some of the girls to look at him longingly, perhaps hoping that he'd ask them out, but he regards them with haughty disdain, pretending that they don't exist. Genuinely popular people don't hang out with only three other people, one of whom is "cool" because he's a werewolf (though he's an extremely ineffectual Prefect who doesn't want to stand up to his friends for fear that they'll stop liking him) and the other of whom is a drooling sycophant. Potioncat: > From the expressions in crowd in SWM, quite a few onlookers weren't thinking "Gee, these guys are cool." They were thinking, "I hope I'm not next." Carol: I agree. And I think it explains why no one but Lily, a Gryffindor Prefect, had the courage to stand up to them. Of course, there were people in the crowd who disliked Severus and found the incident amusing, but I don't think they were in the majority. I agree with the rest of your post, but I'm snipping it because you've already effectively answered Mike and because I don't think any of us are likely to change our minds about whether the Marauders are "cool." My point was that Harry is at first embarrassed to be seen by people like Cho (who was pretty and popular and therefore "cool" without hexing anybody in the hallways) with people like Neville (who was chubby and forgetful and carried around an "uncool" toad and ugly, sap-spitting plants), and Luna (who said and believed crazy things and wore things like radish earrings, bottlecap necklaces, and spectrespecs). Later, he learns not to judge Neville and Luna by appearances. They may not be "cool" on a superficial level, but takes reckless bravery to great heights and Luna is just, well, extraordinary. She helps Harry to understand death, she's unfazed by captivity in the Malfoys' secret room, she helps Harry to cast his Patronus when he's feeling only despair. What does JKR think is "cool"? I don't know. Maybe she genuinely feels that way about MWPP. She's fond of them, certainly (well, not Peter), and not without reason. But Harry, I think, comes to realize that "coolness," in the sense that the Marauders were "cool," isn't nearly as important as loyalty, friendship, and dedication to a cause. his sympathetic understanding of Luna in OoP is a defining moment. It would be interesting to locate all the references to "cool" in the HP books and find out when the last one occurs. I can't recall any uses of the word in the slang sense we're discussing after the battle against the DEs in the MoM. Carol, likewise wishing that the posts weren't so hard to track From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 16:44:28 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 16:44:28 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182696 montavilla47 wrote: > > > But, even if Lupin can't be trusted, there's still Bill Weasley, the CURSE-BREAKER! Why the hell is he puttering around Shell Cottage when he could be saving the world? > > Potioncat: > That reminds me of DH days. We did have high hopes for Bill and Charley. Perfectly placed Weasleys who would be important to Harry later on. And when one DH cover was leaked...a roomful of treasure and a dragon...surely Charley and Bill would come into their own. Carol responds: And isn't it ironic that HRH are in Bill's house, plotting with a Goblin they know is not trustworthy, when Bill actually worked for Gringotts? Wouldn't it be logical to ask for his help in breaking into the Lestranges' vault? I'm quite sure that he wouldn't have suggested Poly-juicing Hermione as Bellatrix, for starters. That particular Horcrux capture (theft) was nearly disastrous since it alerted Voldemort that his Horcruxes were being taken. If they could have taken the cup without alerting the Goblins and Bella and LV and without losing the Sword of Gryffindor, a lot fewer lives would have been lost. But, of course, that wasn't the story JKR wanted to tell, so she made Harry promise DD not to tell anyone except his two friends about the Horcruxes. Carol, wishing that a lot of things had worked out differently in DH From iam.kemper at gmail.com Mon Apr 28 17:09:16 2008 From: iam.kemper at gmail.com (kempermentor) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:09:16 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182698 > > Potioncat: > > The Coolness thread made me think of youth and school and a > > parent's perspective. > > > > So, with that in mind, here's the question. > > > > If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to > > fit in? Why? > > ... which group of kids would > > you want to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters > > would you be most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups > > appeal to you in the beginning of the series, but with whom > > you wouldn't want to belong later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) > Montavilla47: > I think I'd like to hang out with the Hufflepuffs, myself. ... > > I never much cared for the jocks, so I think I'd stay away from the > Griffyndors. But I have always liked Neville, so I think if I were > in Harry's generation, I'd want to hang out with him. > Seamus and Dean also seem nice. > > I might like the girls, but I'm not ... as girly as they seem to be, > (the giggling and boy talk and all that), so I would have, like > Hermione, sought out the boys for friendship. > > But, alpha male boys are no fun at all. > So, not Harry and not Draco. Kemper now: I don't see Harry as alpha. He is not interested in being in charge. He'd rather be alone or with few others. When he does take charge he is thrust into it rather than seeking it out (DADA professor/Team captain). As a leader, he seems a good. But I still agree with you... I would not want to hang around with Harry. Ron, though, reminds me of jr/sr high school friends and so does Neville. Collin Creevey's hero worship and Luna's oddness seems like they would easily transfer into the comic book geek I (and friends) was. (Going on first road trip away from parents to San Diego Comic Con!!!) As for the Adults... I like flirting with the old ladies, so I would dig on McGonnagall... and she would dig on me! I like most of the Adults except the Dumbledore brothers (they're both creepy but in different ways), the MoM, DE's, DADA profs except Snape, and Slughorn. Kemper From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 17:30:48 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:30:48 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182699 Deb wrote: > Questions > > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's > location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is > open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all > this time? Why is he willing to do this? Potioncat: I hadn't thought about it before. But it looks like he did spend a good deal of time waiting around. Can't think the purse was any more boring than the empty bedroom at 12 GP. I suppose he did it because Headmaster Snape asked him to. > > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did > not attempt to identify the doe? Potioncat: I knew at once! I had been expecting a DD-Patronus (bumble-bee or phoenix) or dreading a Lily-Patronus (unicorn). I identified the doe as a Lily-Patronus as soon as I saw it. This was the brightest moment in the book (well, almost). More than anything I wanted to e-mail my fellow Snape supporters to share the excitemnt and joy. I anticipated Snape's loyalties being revealed, a reunion of sorts between Harry and Snape and a happy ending for Harry and Severus. (not together, mind you.) Boy was I let down. (But it could have been so much worse.) I don't think it was mis-direction. JKR had told us Snape's Patronus was important. I would guess most of us recognised it. My son didn't have a clue who it could be from. So if JKR wanted to drop a hint without fully revealing, I think she did a good job of it. No, I'm not surprised Harry didn't make any attempts at identifying the doe. He's always been lacking in that sort of activity. Besides, life became very busy after this. Thanks, Deb, for a great summary and questions. I hope to get to the other questions later. From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Mon Apr 28 17:40:33 2008 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:40:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84540A49-7138-4700-9D5F-6EE6BAAEBA8A@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 182700 On 2008, Apr 28, , at 08:01, Debbie wrote: > Questions > > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's > location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is > open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all > this time? Why is he willing to do this? Phineas Nigellus is a natural busybody. I think he was already portrayed as willing to follow the trio and at this critical time, he would also be willing to do so for extended times because Snape, a Slytherin headmaster, tells him to. As for the cramped bag, I can't see that it is too much different from a flat picture. > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did > not attempt to identify the doe? The doe was written in the style of good things. There is no ominous foreshadowing or prickling neck of evil, so I felt, like Harry, that it was trustworthy. I did think about the fact that it was similar to the stag that Harry conjures. Do we know what Ginny's Patronus is - I can't remember? We find out sometime that Ginny was attempting to steal the sword. I am not sure how Harry would have attempted to identify the doe. It wasn't one of the talking Patronuses that can be identified by their voices, Harry hadn't seen it before, and people don't usually ask them questions anyway. > 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? > Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the > destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this > action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? I think Snape left when the Patronus disappeared. Perhaps he already knew that Ron was in the area as well and didn't want to risk discovery. He could always get Phineas Nigellus to check up on him later. If Snape had actually seen the destruction of the locket, I think he might have been able to add up all the clues and figure out what Harry et al. were up to. After all, he knew about the diary and the ring. If he had seen and heard the Locket Voldemort and had seen its destruction, I think he would have been smart enough and familiar enough with dark magic to put the rest together. > 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't > Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had > wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to > torment him instead? I don't think it HAD to be Ron who destroyed the locket Horcrux. I think Harry or Hermione could have physically done it. I think Harry saw it as magically fitting that he destroy it - he had saved Harry and had retrieved the sword - analogous to Harry saving Ginny and retrieving the sword. I think Harry instinctively knows that this will make Ron stronger in the long run. > 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a > prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I > have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you > dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about > Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the > torturing? It tells me that Ron is vulnerable to his doubts. Voldemort is good at finding people's weaknesses and exploiting them emotionally. Ron's weakness is doubt in himself. Why didn't the locket just get on with torturing? Ah, but this is the best form of torture! Encouraging self-doubt in a person who is vulnerable to it. > > 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before > he destroys the locket Horcrux? I think Ron is getting emotionally close to the locket and is, to some extent, possessed by it. But like Harry whose willingness to love expelled Voldemort, Ron expels Voldemort by finding a power that he has that VM does not - courage to accept himself. LauraW -- Laura Lynn Walsh lwalsh at acsalaska.net http://llwcontemplations.blogspot.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Mon Apr 28 15:00:16 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:00:16 -0500 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore References: <1209384782.3511.57785.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003901c8a940$bff0a780$78ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182701 Nikkalmati wrote: > My original question was whether JKR saw the dichotomy >between the story she wrote and the story she thinks she wrote. >MHO, of course. . . . SNIP . . . >I see another and much more morally complex story in which >DD is far from "the epitomy of goodness" JKH once called him. >(Does she really believe that?) His behavior is morally ambiguous >at best and a good example of why one cannot leave it to one >person to decide what is "the greater good". Aren't there some >things one should never do even if one believes good would result? I think that Nikkalmati has mentioned something that makes me think of a major gut feeling problem I have with the HP series as it was completed in DH. As I see it, there are now several different HP series'. There is the one JKR thinks she wrote. There is the one contained in a straight reading of the books, without consulting other sources or looking deeply. There is the one contained in reading the books and all the interviews JKR gave, which provide us with additional information (some of it contradictory to the books and/or with other interviews) and also reading all the information contained on JKR's own web site, including the WOMBAT tests. There are numerous versions based on various levels of participation in Fan activities and/or visiting fan sites. And of course, that is probably normal. But there can be such differences between these versions. Take Dumbledore. As Nikkalmati said, she once called him "the epitomy of goodness", and up until DH my reading of the books had me able to see him that way. I had discounted the various "puppetmaster DD" theories I had encountered, as I couldn't imagine an "epitomy of goodness" being so very manipulative of others. I knew he wanted to keep information to himself, but I hadn't imagined that he would tell out right lies, (well, not to people like Harry at least.) While I don't object to the concept of making DD human, with human weaknesses, I find the DD in DH to be so very flawed that I can't see calling him "the epitomy of goodness." He may be a great wizard, doing his best in a difficult situation. But that is something else completely. Another way that these various versions of HP clash might relate to the issue of how the secret keeper charm works, and what happens when/if the secret keeper dies. If I had never read JKR's web site, and hadn't read her explanation of this, I would have enjoyed DH much more. However, my reading of the book and web site makes it seem to me that the way she explained it on her web site and the way it worked in DH were completely different. In addition, the way she had it work in DH leaves the reader in a great puzzle as to why James or Lily weren't made the secret keeper for the Potter household in Godric's Hollow. The problem isn't so much how she defined the rules for a Secret Keeper, but that the rules aren't consistent (or don't seem so to me) on a concept so very central to the plot of the book. It makes me wonder if she can get such an important concept mixed up, how can we rely on other aspects of the books to be consistent? (And this might not matter so much to me, if so many interviews hadn't made the point that she had been carefully plotting the whole series out for so many years and working to establish rules for how magic works.) Jerri From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Mon Apr 28 15:00:43 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:00:43 -0500 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power References: <1209384782.3511.57785.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003a01c8a940$c1d6f3b0$78ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182702 Montavilla47 said: >I quite agree, Carol. Which is why I wish--partly from a storytelling >view, partly from the commonsense one--that Dumbledore had >put someone on the Horcrux-Destroying team who did have some >of that "flashy magic." Or advanced skills in D.A.D.A. >In a sense this is a silly thing for me to be bemoaning. The story >wasn't about being clever. It was, like all the plots, about >manipulating things so that Harry is in certain places at certain >times, and experiences certain things. But, really, having >a former D.A.D.A. teacher with Death Eater connections, who spends >his summers entombed with Dark Arts' books... and an already >ostracized former D.A.D.A. teacher with plenty of Dark Arts chops, >AND a curse-breaker who works for the bank that is safeguarding >a Horcrux and never using them... > >It's like having a roomful of guns onstage and never having one go >off in the third act. And it isn't only these three skilled DADA folks who are left on the mantelpiece, so to speak. There are so many other concepts that she created in the early books and never allowed to "go off". I felt the giants were underutilized for all the build up we received. And, why not have any other werewolf but Lupin appear on the good side? I could go on and on. Jerri From kersberg at chello.nl Mon Apr 28 15:15:41 2008 From: kersberg at chello.nl (kamion53) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 15:15:41 -0000 Subject: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182703 > Catlady wrote: > Meanwhile, I want to know what Gellaert did to be expelled > from Durmstrang, and how evil he actually was at the time. -- I don't think that Durmstrang, Beauxbatons and Hogwarts did differ that much on the concept of the Dark Arts. The Dark Arst are more or less the Martial Arts of Muggles, and although the high morality dictates only the use of it for self defense, every form of Martial Arts can get quite deadly. Durmstrang certainly was not an institute that trained the Wizarding variant of commando's S.E.A.L.s or Ninja's, otherwise it would not have been part of the fellowship that organized the TriWizard Tournement, but probably been persecuted by other Wizard schools or institutions. It's only in the movie it got the image a Wizardly Militairy School. Also we don't have much of a clue what DADA include during the time Merrythought was still teaching it, we only get the image of a curriculum that is lame by a curse and fraud by incompetence or handicapped teachers. The best defense against an attack is to know how to attack. If DADA was in essence not more aggressive than the Expelliarmus-level Harry performed so sublime, then where did a Molly Weasley, the example par exelance of a NON Dark Wizard learned her skills needed to go for the kill against Bellatrix? Obvious there are more deadly curses then A.K alone, Trixi and Molly exchange quite a lot before Bellatrix is hit deadly. And noone gets the characteristics in DH of the A.K. curse. With judo and karate or kung fu one does not start with learning how to strangled an opponent, one starts with learning how to break a fall and catch ones own weight. It's, for as far as I know, only Draco's vindictive statement that Durmstarng doesn't teach the lame Defense Aginst the Dark Arts, but the Darks Arts themselves. And considering the state of education at Hogwarts, DADA is pretty lame. Another account that is as vindictive as that of Draco's, is by Rita Skeeter but this time against Durmstrang and by association against Dumbledore. I think Durmstrang just had a different style of teaching the subject of Dark Arts, maybe more aggresive, to learn the defense from the aggresion, but all within it's code and international accepted morals. The Hogwarts style might be more defense if taught correctly for seven years - the Umbridge method was never the offical style what ever she said about the Ministry - but we see that very many of the Hogwartians learned in the end the agression, starting from the defense, Flitwick, Sprout and McGonagall taking a lead in this. So Hogwarts and Durmstrang just have different styles as different kung fu schools have different styles. Now I wonder what the Beauxbaton style was, not pretty effective consdering Fleur Delacour achievements. kamion From marsuk2000 at yahoo.co.uk Mon Apr 28 17:14:02 2008 From: marsuk2000 at yahoo.co.uk (MarS) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:14:02 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182704 > Debbie in the summary wrote: > > Ron also tells Harry he thought he saw someone move between two > tree trunks while he was running to the pool to rescue Harry. > Harry looks but sees no footprints or other signs. There is another thing I noticed, when just reading this chapter at the above referenced section. There is Ron's part, where we know it is Snape, however; it was Harry's bit which really confused me i.e. 'the footprints or other signs'. I just realized that the 'no footprints' - that in this case could be because Snape was flying to hide and not make them. MarS From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 19:34:21 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:34:21 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182705 > >Alla: > > >I am not Beatrice, but since I find Carol's argument about Boggart >quite weak myself, I am going to try and explain why and maybe my >reasoning is the same as Beatrice or maybe not. > > >So this is the part of the argument I find ridiculous - how exactly the fact that Harry casts it upon the Boggart!Dementor somehow downplays his accomplishment. Carol responds: I also don't much appreciate having my canon-supported argument described as "ridiculous" by a List Elf, of all people. Disagreement and counterarguments are one thing; but disparaging someone's carefully expressed and canon-supported arguments is another. Alla: See feedback list for reply. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Mon Apr 28 20:04:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:04:05 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182706 CHAPTER DISCUSSION: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Chapter 19, The Silver Doe Carol: I'm sorry to snip your "admirably succinct and accurate summary," to quote DD from memory. I'd like to state before I answer the questions that this is one of my favorite chapters in DH, not only because they *finally* destroy a Horcrux and Ron returns, but because it combines suspense, excitement, humor, and pathos--JKR at her best. I loved the description of the doe Patronus, which is clearly as powerful as it is bright and beautiful, and Ron's characteristic "Are--you--*mental*?" which not only sums up my own reaction (Are you crazy, Harry? Take off the accursed Horcrux before you dive in!) but also lets us know in three words exactly who is standing there, dripping wet, with the Sword of Gryffindor in his hand. And, of course, there's the hint that Snape is helping Harry . . . . All in all, one of the best chapters in the book, IMO. > Questions > > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all this time? Why is he willing to do this? Carol responds: Of course, not being Phineas, I can't answer with any certainty, but he can no longer go to 12 GP even if there were any reason to do so. His choices are reduced to Snape's office (where, as we learn in "The Prince's Tale," he goes immediately to report HRH's location) or the beaded bag. I think this is what he's been waiting for. IIRC, he doesn't reappear after the Sword of Gryffindor is delivered, nor does Hermione take out his portrait to keep them company after Ron returns. I think that Phineas enjoys his role as both informant and informer (that is, he drops tidbits of information to HRH like the nature of Snape's detention for Neville, Luna, and Ginny and at the same time listens for key information that HRH might provide if they drop their guard, the most important being their location, which Snape needs to deliver the sword). He's loyal to Headmaster Snape (we can see hints of that in HBP, where he twice reacts to Harry's disparaging remarks about the DADA professor) and the role suits him. I think even waiting in Hermione's beaded bag for her to take out his portrait is more exciting and rewarding than (literally) hanging around Snape's office all day, listening to the other portraits talk or snooze. Also, he's helping Slytherin, represented by headmaster Snape, to do its part in the fight against Voldemort. > > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did not attempt to identify the doe? Carol: My initial reaction was that it had to be Snape's Patronus, and, of course, I was hoping that the opening chapter and George's ear were misdirection (already partly balanced out by the revelation of the detention that Snape had assigned), and we'd been told that Snape had sent the Sword of Gryffindor to the Lestranges' vault, ostensibly not knowing that it was a fake, and yet here was the real sword delivered by someone with a Doe Patronus, so who else could it be? I was torn by conflicting emotions, hope that this was the unarguable proof that Snape was DDM (though the revelation of Harry's departure time and George's ear still nagged at me), and annoyance that, despite my theories that Snape was loyal to DD for some reason other than Lily, the Snape/Lily shippers appeared to be right. As for Harry's not attempting to identify the doe, both he and Ron initially think it's that the other sent it, and in the next chapter, as I noted in a recent post, they do speculate briefly that it might have been Kingsley (ruled out because his Patronus is a lynx) or evendead DD returning in some form (as Harry once thought that James had returned to cast the Stag Patronus). Harry senses that it's familiar, but I don't think he could possibly realize that it's familiar because it was his mother's, or represents his mother, or both. Interestingly, they never speculate that the caster might be female, say, Mrs. Weasley. All they conclude is that the caster wants to help them and that the Patronus is clearly not Dark magic. I don't think they could have guessed, given their view of Snape as a "murderer" and "coward" and traitor who "hated" Harry's "Mud-Blood" mother, that the Patronus was Snape's, even if they figured out that it was, in a sense, the mate to Harry's Stag Patronus and must therefore have been his mother's. Obviously, Lily herself is not casting it, and Snape's love for Lily is so incomprehensible to them that it would not even occur as a remote possibility. (The characters' preconceptions shape their interpretation of events and people throughout the books.) > > 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? Carol responds: That's a very good question, and I don't think that we have a definitive answer since "The Prince's Tale" ends with Snape getting ready to leave to deliver the sword of Gryffindor. However, Ron thinks he saw something or someone move as he was running to rescue Harry. I think that snape was on the verge of revealing himself when he realized that Ron, not Harry, was going to retrieve the sword "under conditions of need and valor." I think he watched just long enough to see Ron emerge with Harry and the sword and to be sure that Harry was alive before silently Disapparating. He might have seen Harry place the locket on the stone and ask Ron to destroy it, but I don't think so. And there was no reason for him to stay long enough to watch the Horcrux destruction. If he did see the destruction of the Horcrux, I think he would have realized that it, like Harry's scar, contained part of Harry's soul and been angry with DD for not informing him about it. (DD, for his own mysterious reasons, seems to be withholding that information, and Snape, determined to do what he can, accepts DD's secrecy, at the same time reassuring him that he won't let them see him. It's interesting that he violates DD's instructions earlier by saving Lupin, nearly revealing his loyalties by hitting a DE's hand with Sectumsempra, and would apparently have done so again, revealing himself and his loyalties by rushing forward to save Harry if Ron had not shown up.) > 4. The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian legend. JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and reworking those legends for her own purposes. Is that what happened here? Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur? If so, how? And what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who succeeded in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor? Carol: Yikes. A difficult question and one that requires a lot of canon from both the HP books (all references to the Sword of Gryffindor, not just this chapter) and to Arthurian legend. I'll just say that Harry's ability to draw the sword from the Sorting Hat in CoS has always struck me as being a cross between the boy Arthur pulling Excalibur from the stone, accidentally revealing himself as the true king, and a magician pulling a rabbit out of a hat. And in this chapter, we seem to have a reference to the Lady in the Lake rising out of the water to hand Excalibur to Arthur (though, of course, it's not nearly that easy for Ron to retrieve it, and Harry, the Chosen One, ironically fails altogether). At any rate, this scene, in addition to providing a highly dramatic way for Ron to symbolically slay his demons, certainly proves that he, like Harry earlier and Neville later, is a true and worthy Gryffindor. (I wonder if the scene would have proven that Snape was sorted too early if he'd had to rescue Harry himself. Would he have left the sword or rescued both it and Harry?) BTW, one of the Arthurian chroniclers, Geoffrey of Monmouth, calls Arthur's spear "Ron." Wondering whether knew this tidbit and whether it was relevant, I did a Google search and found an article called "Ron the Spear," which discusses the Arthurian connections of the Weasley family and Harry as JKR's "Once and Future King." http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=dorish&plckController=PersonaBlog&plckScript=personaScript&plckElementId=personaDest&plckPersonaPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3AdorishPost%3Aa8fe3539-0de2-46b4-ad5f-734b36883c98 > 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to torment him instead? Carol responds: I think that it was appropriate for Ron to destroy the Horcrux that had tortured, enabling him to end his self-doubt and envy and jealousy and resentment. Having Ron, who has just proven himself worthy of the honor by saving Harry and retrieving the Sword of Gryffindor, destroy the locket that tormented him not only allows Ron to strike a blow against Voldemort, making him, in effect, Harry's equal on the Horcrux quest, but it also, as I said, frees him of the demons that had haunted him, which rise up out of the locket in very tangible form, incidentally revealing to Harry exactly why Ron reacted as he did to the locket Horcrux. It's not that Harry could not have destroyed the locket just as effectively, given that he's also a worthy Gryffindor and the sword is saturated with Basilisk venom, it's that "Ron the spear" (sorry; overly influenced by that seeming coincidence) deserves the honor and it serves a very important purpose to have him destroy it. Harry is right, IMO, to believe that the one who retrieved the sword should be the one to use it. His instinct here, as often (but not always) is on the money. As for what would have happened if he had destroyed the locket, I think the "demons" (Tom Riddle in some form) would have tried to come between him and Ron, affecting them both. Better to let Ron put an end to them once and for all. > > 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the torturing? Carol: Just speculating here: I think this is one of Voldemort's false promises, trying to make himself seem omniscient and omnipotent, like his false promise to Harry in SS/PS that he, Voldemort, could bring Harry's parents back to life if Harry handed him the SS. The locket is trying to protect itself by claiming powers that it doesn't have (and wouldn't use if it did). It's simultaneously a bribe (protect me and I'll help you achieve your dreams) and a threat (endanger me and I'll cause your fears to come true). It also serves as a preliminary to the torture, which involves Ron's hopes (chiefly, earning Hermione's love and admiration) balanced against his fears and self-doubts (chiefly, that Harry will take Hermione away from him). Together, locket Tom's remarks prepare Ron (and, incidentally, Harry and the reader) for the tableau that follows, in which Locket!Harry and Locket!Hermione enact those fears by taunting him and kissing each other. (What a scen that will be if it's kept in the film!) > > 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before he destroys the locket Horcrux? Carol: Very good question. It's quite scary because it's so reminiscent of a similar red gleam in Diary!Tom's eye is CoS and in Tom Riddle's eye as he examines the cup and the locket at Hepzibah Smith's house. My first thought was that the locket Horcrux made a last-ditch effort to possess him and Ron fought it off in the only possible way, destroying the thing that tormented him, but I don't think that's the case. The locket is winning at this point, and the figures of Locket!Harry and Locket!Hermione are embracing and kissing. I think that, far from being the final blow to Ron, this act enrages him, and he attacks the figures out of pure fury, reflected by the red gleam in his eyes. (I'm open to other interpretations; that's just the one that makes most sense to me.) > > 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? Carol: I don't think it's significant. The diary also had a significant Slytherin connection, and it was destroyed, ironically, by the very Slytherin-related Basilisk fang (which, in turn, enables DD, Ron, and Neville to use it against Horcruxes). I think its significance is that it's the weapon of worthy Gryffindors under "conditions of need and valor." (Harry has already used it to destroy the Basilisk, and the Basilisk fang is just as effective.) Hermione is not in peril when she destroys the cup Horcrux with a Basilisk fang (again associated with Salazar Slytherin and Tom Riddle in various ways); we don't even know if it produced some form of Riddle!Voldemort to torture her. (Could a bit of Tom even come out of a cup?). And, of course, a Slytherin destroys the Ravenclaw diadem (and himself) with a Dark curse intended to kill Harry. So all of the Horcrux destructions are Slytherin-related. Even Nagini's death, which seems to result from the Sword cutting off her head, probably would not have occurred if the sword hadn't been saturated with Horcrux-destroying Basilisk venom. You can't rip, smash, crush, or otherwise destroy a Horcrux without a powerful magical substance like Basilisk venom, which has no antidote except Phoenix tears. In all cases, Voldemort's efforts to dominate and destroy, to use Slytherin-related snakes as weapons and to teach Dark curses to Slytherin students, backfire. In all cases, he's hoist by his own Petard. In all cases, evil rebounds on itself like the AK that rebounded off Harry, and LV's quest to prove himself the Heir of Slytherin, like his quest for immortality (the Horcruxes) and for power (the Elder Wand) works against him in the end. > 9. As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had cost them." What was the cost? How did Ron's absence affect their progress? How does his return change things? Carol responds: Another very good question! Aside from his saving Harry, retrieving the Sword, and destroying the Horcrux, all of which, as Harry says, make up for his absence, Ron's destruction of the Horcrux makes them all feel that they've finally accomplished something. It's the first thing they've accomplished since getting the locket from Umbridge. More important, they've both missed Ron and having him with them (healed of his demons and cheerful again) makes them whole. Harry and Hermione were incomplete, a "brother and sister" and sister without the third member of the group, whom Hermione loves (in spite of his sometimes provoking behavior) and whom Harry has always regarded as his *best* friend. (Harry's "Weezy" was the thing he would miss most in the Second Task.) Without Hermione, of course, Harry would have been in grave danger. She rescues him from Nagini and she provides the protective spells (and I was glad to see those bluebell flames she's been conjuring since first year finally play a small role). She supplies books and book knowledge, but she also tends to panic in a crisis (her handling of Nagini being a notable exception) and she's weepy and depressed without Ron. His return allows them to be cheerful again (once she's stopped beating him with her fists and calmed down). In the next chapter, we see his optimism surface, and his perspective later seems to provide a balance between Hermione's skepticism regarding the Hallows and Harry's obsession with them. And in "The Doe Patronus," he also brings them much-needed news (and provides a good reason, which Harry would do well to heed, for not saying the name "Voldemort"). > > 10. Harry concludes that Ron's return went about as well as possible, despite Hermione's reaction. Do you agree? Why? What purpose did that exchange serve? Carol: Yes, I agree. Hermione could have conjured her birds again and refused to listen to Ron and Harry, in which case she would have missed out on some important information. (BTW, have we ever seen a shield Charm create a protective wall before this scene? I though it normally caused the opponent's spell to backfire onto them, or just knocked the other person over if he hadn't cast a spell.) I think the exchange allows Hermione to express her pent-up fury and frustration (the sadness caused by Ron's absence is no longer applicable, and her other feelings have a chance to surface). It's revealing that Hermione doesn't just welcome him with open arms; he's hurt her badly and she wants to be sure that he knows it. And it's revealing, too, that Ron doesn't just stand there and take it. He defends himself rather spiritedly (though, as Hermione says, his two lost fingernails and encounter with the Snatchers are hardly comparable with Nagini and Voldemort). The exchange clears the air and at the same time allows Harry, Hermione, and the reader to know what Ron has been doing while he was gone. > > 11. This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the subtext is all Snape. Is there a connection between these two characters? How are they alike. To what extent are their differences the result of circumstances rather than character? Carol: Another excellent question. Of course, there's the surface resemblance of Ron's seeming betrayal, but that's different from actually having to kill Dumbledore and pretend to be a loyal Death Eater. Ron can return to his friends and be forgiven (after, of course, rescuing Harry, retrieving the sword, and destroying the Horcrux) but Snape has to remain undercover, trusted by no one on the good side except a pair of portraits. And, of course, both Ron and Snape are motivated by love, but Snape's is unrequited and tinged by guilt and remorse, the love of a dead woman which he can only show by secretly helping her son and undermining Voldemort, whereas Ron's is requited but immature and merely tainted by jealousy and self-doubt. Luckily for Ron, he gets a chance to confront and destroy his inner demons. Snape, in contrast, has to live with his, only sharing part of the with Dumbledore. Tragically, Snape has no real friends, even Lily having rejected him (with seemingly good reason) before she died. Ron knows what love and friendship are, not to mention the family whose safety he worries about even under the influence of the Horcrux. The boy Severus, whose family was apparently even more pressed for money than the Weasleys, may have been loved by his mother, but his father was abusive. No one ever imagined the Snapes as one happy family, loving and reunited. And, of course, both Ron and Snape are helping Harry in this scene, and Snape, I'm almost certain, would have saved him as he saved Draco and others if Ron hadn't arrived on the scene, but their motives are very different. I think, actually, that despite the inner demons that Ron and the adult Snape have in common, that Snape's similarities are mostly to Harry, from the abusive Muggle father or father figure and being forced to wear shabby clothes to hair color and being bullied (Harry empathizes with Severus in SWM) and body build to love of Lily (in different ways) to their view of Hogwarts as their home and their determination to destroy Voldemort. (One thing that JKR does extremely well is create parallels between various characters, such as Severus Snape and Sirius Black, or Snape, Harry, and Tom Riddle as a threesome, or Harry and Draco in HBP or, on a small scale, Lily and Ginny. It had never occurred to me to consider parallels between Snape and Ron. It will be interesting to read others' responses. Carol, who deleted a post (different thread) that for some reason appeared twice and apologizes to anyone who was inconvenienced or annoyed by the dupication > From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon Apr 28 21:27:40 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:27:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's DADA skill was Re: Albus and Gellert/Voldemort's Power In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182707 Potioncat: > Personally, I think Lupin went about it all wrong. But we don't know > how he learned or who taught him. > Harry did a better job of teaching the spell. Lupin should have > taught him to cast the spell, to cast it well, then to face the > Boggart/Dementor. > Pippin: It's not often I feel called on to speak up in defense of Lupin! But his goal was not to teach Harry to cast a corporeal patronus. It was to help Harry survive if the dementors attacked him again. It's an important distinction since even the incorporeal patronus can hold a dementor off, although it can't drive one away. Lupin might have taught Harry to cast a corporeal patronus, but it wouldn't have done any good if it vanished as soon as the dementor started to have an effect. Since a boggart dementor probably *would* be driven off or change shape if attacked by a corporeal patronus, Harry wouldn't have been able to practice holding out against the draining effect, which is what he needed to do. In further defense of Harry's "O" in DADA, though Lupin did coach Harry until he could produce an incorporeal patronus, Harry managed the corporeal patronus all on his own, unlike any of the other DA members, including Hermione. Hermione never shows Harry's interest or self-direction in DADA. She does not master an anti-boggart spell on her own, and as Snape observes, she can quote the DADA text but doesn't expand on it. In fact Dumbledore relies on her tendency to go strictly by the book to slow Harry down when he doesn't want Harry to learn about the Elder Wand too quickly. Her grasp of DADA is a bit like Harry's grasp of Potions in HBP -- as good as what's provided, but not better. Pippin who thinks the "O" should also stand for "originality". From juli17 at aol.com Mon Apr 28 22:48:02 2008 From: juli17 at aol.com (julie) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:48:02 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182708 > > montavilla47 wrote: > > > > > But, even if Lupin can't be trusted, there's still Bill Weasley, > the CURSE-BREAKER! Why the hell is he puttering around Shell Cottage > when he could be saving the world? > > > > Potioncat: > > That reminds me of DH days. We did have high hopes for Bill and > Charley. Perfectly placed Weasleys who would be important to Harry > later on. And when one DH cover was leaked...a roomful of treasure and > a dragon...surely Charley and Bill would come into their own. > > Carol responds: > And isn't it ironic that HRH are in Bill's house, plotting with a > Goblin they know is not trustworthy, when Bill actually worked for > Gringotts? Wouldn't it be logical to ask for his help in breaking into > the Lestranges' vault? I'm quite sure that he wouldn't have suggested > Poly-juicing Hermione as Bellatrix, for starters. That particular > Horcrux capture (theft) was nearly disastrous since it alerted > Voldemort that his Horcruxes were being taken. If they could have > taken the cup without alerting the Goblins and Bella and LV and > without losing the Sword of Gryffindor, a lot fewer lives would have > been lost. > > But, of course, that wasn't the story JKR wanted to tell, so she made > Harry promise DD not to tell anyone except his two friends about the > Horcruxes. > > Carol, wishing that a lot of things had worked out differently in DH > Julie: I think you hit the nail on the head, Carol. The story JKR wanted to tell was the story of Harry the boy hero and his two friends who save the world pretty much all by themselves. It's certainly a legitimate choice (it's JKR's story after all) but that choice is what left me somewhat disappointed in DH, and which still leaves me feeling DH was a decent enough end to the saga, but far from the truly amazing wrap-up for which I was so hoping. I think it was our expectations that betrayed us, in part probably because most of us are mature adults (er, chronologically-speaking at least ;-) and we found many of the secondary characters as interesting (myself) or in some cases *more* interesting than the main protagonist and his two young friends. Through the first six books (and especially in OotP) I saw an ensemble cast of characters developing, if not equally, at least each heading toward reaching individual potential within the story. But in reality most of those characters were there only to move along the plot, or else provide a temporary distraction to Harry and the readers. They were intended to be there mostly for Harry's convenience, not for their own merits (and not all fall into this category of course, but many do). I think also that JKR really WAS writing a children's story. Certainly, Harry and his friends matured (again chronologically, though also in some ways psychologically). And the themes got darker and more complicated, geared beyond just younger children. But on a more emotional level I think the story did remain within the realm of adventurous/escapist children's literature, where the child protagonist pulls off daring if unlikely feats while the surrounding adults remain essentially obtuse and ineffective (not in every instance clearly in the HP books, but in a overall sense). As with the Order never seeming fully proactive against Voldemort (e.g., Bill Weasley inexplicably remaining at Shell Cottage, and Charlie Weasley absent--equally inexplicably--from any action). And in the end nothing too much has changed (again, some things have of course changed, but generally speaking world views have not drastically shifted). I don't call the Harry Potter series "escapist children's literature" as an insult (and I'm not debating its merits in comparison to other escapist children's literature). I just think that is what it turned out to be, despite some impressions midstream that led me to see more potential pyschological and emotional depth than was actually delivered. And I would rather view the series as what it is than keep trying to invest all manner of deep meaning (and/or intent) where it doesn't (IMO) exist. Julie, stating only opinion, and like Carol wishing JKR had been telling a different story (i.e. concluding a different series) in DH, but aware this is/was my personal wish which JKR was in no way required to fulfill. (And I suppose there is always fanfic for some of those wishes ;-) From willsonkmom at msn.com Mon Apr 28 23:23:00 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 23:23:00 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182709 >Julie: > I don't call the Harry Potter series "escapist children's > literature" as an insult (and I'm not debating its merits > in comparison to other escapist children's literature). I > just think that is what it turned out to be, despite some > impressions midstream that led me to see more potential > pyschological and emotional depth than was actually delivered. > And I would rather view the series as what it is than keep > trying to invest all manner of deep meaning (and/or intent) > where it doesn't (IMO) exist. Potioncat: Yeah. It's pretty darned good escapist children's literature. (That's books escaping children would read while on the lam, correct?) I began reading the HP to my 3rd child after years of reading Boxcar Children, Animorphs, and the Bailey School Kids books. Oh, what a relief! Although I did enjoy the first six or so Bailey School books. I like the language and the twists of HP. The adult characters do have to be absent at important moments, but they aren't idiots---and they're well written enough to be interesting. Another relief! > > Julie, (And I suppose there > is always fanfic for some of those wishes ;-) Potioncat: I do hope so! yes indeed. I do hope so! From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue Apr 29 00:59:14 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:59:14 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182710 > Nikkalmati: > > What DD has done to several people (Harry, Snape, Dung and probably > others) was more like the Bay of Pigs, invasion where the US > Government told the Cuban mercenaries they would have US aircover and then changed their minds after the invasion started, or the Gulf of Tonkin supposed attack on US warships by the North Vietnamese which, I guess, never happened the way it was reported. Somebody must have thought those decisions were "for the greater good." > Pippin: The US government is supposed to be representative. The Order of the Phoenix is not. Dumbledore governed the Order as a despot -- a benign and enlightened despot possibly, but someone who believed that "humans do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for them." (PS ch 17) That's not a exactly a trumpet call for informed consent, majority rule, or decision-making by consensus. Someone with Dumbledore's philosophy would expect letting people choose for themselves to be ruinous much of the time. Yes, he believes choices are important -- so important that one ought to be very careful about letting just anyone make them. But AFAWK the Order has no expectation that they're going to decide how Voldemort will be fought, so it's not like they're being cheated. Yes, they're being used, but they agreed to it. Snape said, if you'll remember, that he'd do anything. Harry made a similar promise. Dumbledore didn't force either Snape or Harry -- unlike Moody he never threatened anyone with punishment for disobedience. Nor was anyone going to be publicly shamed if they quit. Appealing to someone's emotions is not the same as manipulation -- it's only manipulation if you conceal your purpose. Dumbledore did not -- his purpose was always to destroy Voldemort with as little loss of life as might be. But he didn't promise the Order that their lives were going to be conserved over others. He told Harry that he thought his life would be safe while Dumbledore was with him -- and that was true as far as it went. The moment when it was no longer true was recognized by Harry and Dumbledore at the time. Harry did not realize that it was always meant that he would outlive the status of a protected child, and Dumbledore tried to protect him from finding out. That was foolish, but I can't see it as wicked. I don't think Dumbledore thought of himself as acting for the greater good after Ariana died. I think he believed he had to act for the good of those like Ariana who had no power and no voice. That explains, I think, the seeming shifts in his policy, so that, for instance, he took heed for young Tom's Muggle victims but left the WW to its own devices. It also accounts for his championing of werewolves, giants, Muggleborns, Dobby and others like them. It might even explain why he was hands-off with the Dursleys. Who was really the weaker party? The magical and possibly deathless child or the mean-spirited but merely mortal and Muggle Dursleys? But as to the Bay of Pigs example, there's no disagreement within the Order on *how* Voldemort should be opposed -- it's not like one faction supports containment and the other thinks that Voldemort's forces should be confronted whenever and wherever they may be. In fact it's the absence of such hawkishness that seems to confound (should that be confund?) so many readers. The Order seems to be, as many of their names imply, unanimously behind Dumbledore's Fabian strategy. Why that should be so I think is explained by the history of VWI -- the Ministry took Voldemort head on and kept losing. They couldn't win Voldie's kind of war because even Crouch wasn't prepared to be as ruthless as he was. IMO, Dumbledore's plan to extract Harry from the Dursleys misfired not because of infighting over strategy but because Dumbledore overestimated his enemy's intelligence. He didn't expect Voldemort to attack. He thought, IMO, that Voldemort would realize that it would be vain to confront Harry without a wand far superior to any "poor stick" of Lucius Malfoy's. But as Dumbledore himself discovered, the illusions of one's youth do not always tiptoe quietly offstage when experience enters, or content themselves with commenting on the action like a Greek chorus. Nope, when you least expect it, they mug the hero and try to take over the show. Voldemort should have known that a pure-blood's wand was not necessarily something special, just as Dumbledore should have known the ring would only do him harm, but did they think of that? Hah! So Dumbledore goofed. But was his plan needlessly risky? Wouldn't information about the Order's plans have reached Voldemort even if Snape hadn't revealed it? I think that was a real possibility, since I know of no reason that Voldemort couldn't have forced an Order member to talk as easily as Snape did. If Snape had not produced the information, Voldemort would have tried to get it elsewhere, and doubtless he would have succeeded. Surely he wouldn't simply have taken the Ministry's information as a given. IMO the "epitome of goodness" remark needs to be considered in context. JKR was answering a question about whether writing good characters was boring, and her answer applied to the characters she created, not good people in general, IMO. Was there a better example than Dumbledore of a good character in the books at that time? Pippin From puduhepa98 at aol.com Tue Apr 29 01:39:22 2008 From: puduhepa98 at aol.com (nikkalmati) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:39:22 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182711 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" wrote: > > > Nikkalmati: > > > > What DD has done to several people (Harry, Snape, Dung and probably > > others) was more like the Bay of Pigs, invasion where the US > > Government told the Cuban mercenaries they would have US aircover > and then changed their minds after the invasion started, or the Gulf > of Tonkin supposed attack on US warships by the North Vietnamese > which, I guess, never happened the way it was reported. Somebody must > have thought those decisions were "for the greater good." > > > > Pippin: > The US government is supposed to be representative. The Order of the > Phoenix is not. Dumbledore governed the Order as a despot -- a benign > and enlightened despot possibly, but someone who believed that "humans > do have a knack of choosing precisely those things that are worst for > them." (PS ch 17) > > That's not a exactly a trumpet call for informed consent, majority > rule, or decision-making by consensus. Nikkalmati There is so much material in this response that it is difficult to respond without cutting out points and going off on a tangent. I was responding to Mike's comment that DD was just acting like a general ordering his troops into battle. I was trying to make the point that DD employs more of a "bait and switch" tactic. Tell someone they are doing X while plotting for them to do Y (and leaving them to hang in the wind, if needed). The fact that the OP are all volunteers makes it even more reprehensible to take their trust and deceive them. Plus, of course, it is bad tactics to rely entirely on one's self and act without any counsel or input. Nikkalmati > > Someone with Dumbledore's philosophy would expect letting people > choose for themselves to be ruinous much of the time. Yes, he > believes choices are important -- so important that one ought to be > very careful about letting just anyone make them. But AFAWK the > Order has no expectation that they're going to decide how Voldemort > will be fought, so it's not like they're being cheated. > > Yes, they're being used, but they agreed to it. Snape said, if you'll > remember, that he'd do anything. Harry made a similar promise. Nikklalmati Didn't JKR make allowing people to make their own (informed?) choices a theme of the books? A choice is not valid unless it is informed BTW. Nikkalmati > > Dumbledore didn't force either Snape or Harry -- unlike Moody he > never threatened anyone with punishment for disobedience. Nor was > anyone going to be publicly shamed if they quit. > > Appealing to someone's emotions is not the same as manipulation > -- it's only manipulation if you conceal your purpose. Dumbledore did > not -- his purpose was always to destroy Voldemort with as little loss > of life as might be. But he didn't promise the Order that their lives > were going to be conserved over others. Nikkalmati I cannot agree that appealing to someone's emotions is not manipulation. The fact that he wanted to destroy LV does not excuse him from revealing how this was to come down. He let Harry think he would battle LV in a fair fight. What would Harry have said, if DD told him, you are to destroy the Horcruxes and then let LV kill you? I admire Harry and believe his courage and self-sacrifice were up to the task, but we will never know, will we, because DD concealed his purpose. He also concealed his purpose from Snape, letting him think he was doing what Lily would have wanted by protecting Harry, when the ultimate role for Harry was to die. Lily gave every sign of wanting Harry to live. I'm not sure whe would have been willing to sacrifice her son even to safeguard the WW. "Not Harry!" Find another way, she would have said. > > He told Harry that he thought his life would be safe while Dumbledore > was with him -- and that was true as far as it went. The moment when > it was no longer true was recognized by Harry and Dumbledore at the > time. Harry did not realize that it was always meant that he would > outlive the status of a protected child, and Dumbledore tried to > protect him from finding out. That was foolish, but I can't see it as > wicked. Nikkalmati I don't really see DD as wicked. Nikkalmati > > I don't think Dumbledore thought of himself as acting for the greater > good after Ariana died. I think he believed he had to act for the good > of those like Ariana who had no power and no voice. That > explains, I think, the seeming shifts in his policy, so that, for > instance, he took heed for young Tom's Muggle victims but left the WW > to its own devices. It also accounts for his championing of > werewolves, giants, Muggleborns, Dobby and others like them. It might > even explain why he was hands-off with the Dursleys. Who was really > the weaker party? The magical and possibly deathless child or the > mean-spirited but merely mortal and Muggle Dursleys? Nikkalmati So you don't think DD was motivated by his view of the greater good? That was my original question. Is that a standard JKR hold up as admirable in the books? Nikkalmati > > But as to the Bay of Pigs example, there's no disagreement within the > Order on *how* Voldemort should be opposed -- it's not like one > faction supports containment and the other thinks that Voldemort's > forces should be confronted whenever and wherever they may be. In fact > it's the absence of such hawkishness that seems to confound (should > that be confund?) so many readers. The Order seems to be, as many of > their names imply, unanimously behind Dumbledore's Fabian strategy. > Why that should be so I think is explained by the history of VWI -- > the Ministry took Voldemort head on and kept losing. They couldn't win > Voldie's kind of war because even Crouch wasn't prepared to be as > ruthless as he was. Nikkalmati I meant the Bay of Pigs reference, not as an example of a dispute over tactics, but as an example of the betrayal of the soldier by the government. Nikkalmati > > IMO, Dumbledore's plan to extract Harry from the Dursleys misfired not > because of infighting over strategy but because Dumbledore > overestimated his enemy's intelligence. He didn't expect Voldemort to > attack. He thought, IMO, that Voldemort would realize that it would > be vain to confront Harry without a wand far superior to any "poor > stick" of Lucius Malfoy's. > > But as Dumbledore himself discovered, the illusions of one's youth do > not always tiptoe quietly offstage when experience enters, or content > themselves with commenting on the action like a Greek chorus. Nope, > when you least expect it, they mug the hero and try to take over the > show. Voldemort should have known that a pure-blood's wand was not > necessarily something special, just as Dumbledore should have known > the ring would only do him harm, but did they think of that? Hah! > > So Dumbledore goofed. But was his plan needlessly risky? Wouldn't > information about the Order's plans have reached Voldemort even if > Snape hadn't revealed it? I think that was a real possibility, since I > know of no reason that Voldemort couldn't have forced an Order member > to talk as easily as Snape did. > > If Snape had not produced the information, Voldemort would have tried > to get it elsewhere, and doubtless he would have succeeded. Surely he > wouldn't simply have taken the Ministry's information as a given. Nikkalmati The plan went exactly as DD envisioned it. Any attempt to remove Harry was risky. I see no sign DD thought LV would not attack. The Order assumed there was a high liklihood of attack. LV probably cholse Malfoy's want to embarass or shame him and because it was probably expensive, of the best quality. Snape did not extract any information - he planted it. Nikkalmati > > Pippin > IMO the "epitome of goodness" remark needs to be considered in > context. JKR was answering a question about whether writing good > characters was boring, and her answer applied to the characters she > created, not good people in general, IMO. Was there a better example > than Dumbledore of a good character in the books at that time? Nikkalmati You are probably correct. The remark was never meant to be taken out of context. Yet, do you think JKR sees DD as an an admirable man or an object lesson on how a great man with good intentions can go wrong? Nikkalmati > > From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 02:10:30 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:10:30 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182712 Questions 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all this time? Why is he willing to do this? Alla: Hmmm, I believe that it is simply because he is bound to serve the current Headmaster and Snape is one. So I guess my answer is out of the sense of duty to Snape. 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did not attempt to identify the doe? Alla: Yes, Harry feels as if he came home, so sure upon reread I could see how it points out to something close and beloved, but it now made me think. How come does it feel that way, if all it is a Patronus? It is not Lily??s soul, it is not even her imprint, like in GoF, it is just guardian spirit. I do wonder. No it did not feel odd to me that Harry did not attempt to identify the doe. His instincts tell him that this is not a dark magic, it does feel believable to me that Harry would not go any further in his inquiry. 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? Alla: I do not believe Snape saw anything I think he left very fast when sword was recovered, I do not believe that he would want to risk being discovered any more than necessary to be sure that sword is with Trio. 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to torment him instead? Alla: Well, I suppose thematically that it makes sense to finally deal with Ron??s insecurities full stop in the chapter where he returns and for him to destroy the horcrux for that reason makes sense to me. I mean story wise he is of course destroying it because he retrieved the sword and isn??t cool how Harry just knows that it has to be Ron. But I think this chapter symbolizes Ron??s growing up finally. And absolutely I am sure locket could have done Harry or anybody??s torture as well. 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the torturing?. Alla: My goodness how did you come up with so many great questions, Debbie? LOVE this one too. Hmmm, I interpreted it as saying that Ron dreams to become a better man and it is all possible for him if he puts his heart into it, but that he dreads of his insecurities overcoming him and that is also possible if he lets them to. Why didn??t locket just get it on, I have no idea. 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before he destroys the locket Horcrux? Alla: I believe he was almost possessed or just possessed and managed to overcome it just like Harry did in OOP. 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? Alla: Gryffindor rules? ?? Seriously though I am not sure if I like symbolism here, so I prefer to think there is none. 9. As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had cost them." What was the cost? How did Ron's absence affect their progress? How does his return change things? Alla: Honestly, the only thing I can think of is laughter, good mood, etc. I was very very disappointed in Ron that he left, I am sure I mentioned it before. I was hoping that Ron will turn out to be Harry??s most loyal friend if it ever comes to that. I guess I was hoping that he already grew up out of the crap he pulled in GoF, but I suppose he just finished growing up. I do not see that Ron??s absence cost them anything, except grief that they felt when he left. 10. Harry concludes that Ron's return went about as well as possible, despite Hermione's reaction. Do you agree? Why? What purpose did that exchange serve? Alla: I thought that Harry was right in a sense that Hermione needed to let out steam Thanks Debbie, loved questions. From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 02:27:19 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:27:19 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182713 Pippin: I don't think Dumbledore thought of himself as acting for the greater good after Ariana died. I think he believed he had to act for the good of those like Ariana who had no power and no voice. That explains, I think, the seeming shifts in his policy, so that, for instance, he took heed for young Tom's Muggle victims but left the WW to its own devices. It also accounts for his championing of werewolves, giants, Muggleborns, Dobby and others like them. Alla: Okay, this is very nicely said, so you are arguing that DD decided to fight only for those who are weaker in different aspects, yes? Pippin: It might even explain why he was hands-off with the Dursleys. Who was really the weaker party? The magical and possibly deathless child or the mean-spirited but merely mortal and Muggle Dursleys? Alla: Child I would say without any doubt IMO. Ariana was also a magical child, yes? And she was attacked by three little muggle creeps and hurt very badly. So I do not know how many times Dursleys could have damage Harry, irrevocably that is IMO. Thanks Dumbledore. Pippin: So Dumbledore goofed. But was his plan needlessly risky? Wouldn't information about the Order's plans have reached Voldemort even if Snape hadn't revealed it? I think that was a real possibility, since I know of no reason that Voldemort couldn't have forced an Order member to talk as easily as Snape did. If Snape had not produced the information, Voldemort would have tried to get it elsewhere, and doubtless he would have succeeded. Surely he wouldn't simply have taken the Ministry's information as a given. Alla: See this part I do not get at all. It is not like plan gets to Voldemort by accident. Dumbledore deliberately, I repeat deliberately tells Snape to **deliver information**. What does Dumbledore think Voldemort will do with it if not attack? So yes I think plan was not also needlessly risky, but treacherous towards other order members and what is the most annoying I still do not understand what was the underlying reasoning of Dumbledore wanting Voldemort to know except to get few people killed before their time. Oh, he actually did. And heee, you are saying Voldemort would have hunted for information? SURE, but why make it easy on him? Maybe he would have gotten it maybe not, but that would not be because White bearded man or his portrait betrayed the information to Voldemort. Pippin: IMO the "epitome of goodness" remark needs to be considered in context. JKR was answering a question about whether writing good characters was boring, and her answer applied to the characters she created, not good people in general, IMO. Was there a better example than Dumbledore of a good character in the books at that time? Alla: Oh that lovely remark again. Where JKR does says that DD is an epitome of goodness among her characters? How I wish she would never said it, ever. But hey, as I said I love her interviews, but do not always agree with them. I have no problem with her lying in the interviews to protect plot. I think she was entitled to. I just wish she did not open her mouth and said she never did lie. I find it hard to interpret this remark as anything but lie OR if I am generous the biggest joke from her ever. From sweenlit at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 05:17:35 2008 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:17:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43e41d1e0804282217i319610a0vdc393405aeed4f22@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182714 Julie: I think you hit the nail on the head, Carol. The story JKR wanted to tell was the story of Harry the boy hero and his two friends who save the world pretty much all by themselves. Lynda: This is why I've been so flabbergasted at the disappointment so many have exhibited on this list. The story Rowling told is exactly the one I expected. About a boy named Harry Potter who was saved from death when he was a baby, grew up, went to a school of magic and carried out his destiny. To save the world. I didn't really care about the ministry, or all the subplots. I wanted to read Harry's story. . .and that was exactly what I got. In seven installments. Of course, with seven books, there's going to be a lot of extra stuff, but that's what it is. Extra stuff! Not central to the story but peripheral. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From willsonkmom at msn.com Tue Apr 29 13:51:27 2008 From: willsonkmom at msn.com (potioncat) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:51:27 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182715 > Alla: > > Honestly, the only thing I can think of is laughter, good mood, etc. > I was very very disappointed in Ron that he left, I am sure I > mentioned it before. I was hoping that Ron will turn out to be > Harry??s most loyal friend if it ever comes to that. I guess I was > hoping that he already grew up out of the crap he pulled in GoF, but > I suppose he just finished growing up. I do not see that Ron??s > absence cost them anything, except grief that they felt when he left. > Potioncat: For quite some time the list had been expecting one of Harry's friends to abandon or betray him. Some thought it would be Neville, who was seen as comparable to Peter from the Marauders. Others thought Ron would be tempted away from Harry by money. I've always been amused at how close, but not quite there this group comes. Maybe it's just with so many theories some of them had to be close. Back to Ron, Harry and Hermione. Isn't it interesting that Ron wanted to come back at once. But the very defenses his friends were using were keeping him out. Never once did it cross their minds that they were making it impossible for him to return. And all of a sudden, this reminds me of Percy! From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 29 14:48:39 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:48:39 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182716 --- , "potioncat" > > >: > >> Back to Ron, Harry and Hermione. Isn't it interesting that Ron wanted > to come back at once. But the very defenses his friends were using > were keeping him out. Never once did it cross their minds that they > were making it impossible for him to return. > > But that is because they thought he wouldn't want to return! I was always sure deep down that he would come back. Wasn't sure when or how Jayne de lurking > From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Tue Apr 29 14:36:51 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:36:51 -0500 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Sil References: <1209435036.4800.49134.m42@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001d01c8aa0a$132eacc0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182717 Thanks to Debbie for her review and thoughtful questions: >1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's >location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded >bag is open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that >cramped bag all this time? Why is he willing to do this? There have been several good comments on why Phineas is doing this. He has always seemed to admire Snape, he seems also to enjoy spying, and he is supposed to obey the headmaster. I wonder about the inside of the beaded bag. We have seen lots of examples of items in the series which seem to be "as big as they need to be", starting with the Hogwarts Express, which always seems to have exactly the number of cars and seats in the compartments that are needed by the students/plot. There is the Weasley's car, as well as the ministry of magic cars. And I have wondered for some time about Harry's trunk. Aside from Hedwig's cage (tear in my eye) the trunk always seems to be big enough to hold all Harry's possessions, in spite of the fact that they have grown considerably since he was a first year student. (And everything fits, without regard to if it is packed nicely or just tossed in.) I assume that magical trunks are sold in Diagon Alley for Hogwart's students, although I don't think we ever hear about his buying a trunk there. But where else would he have gotten it? The Dursely's would have let him travel to Wizard School with his stuff in plastic carry bags! But, the beaded bag is something special. It seems to hold anything and everything. I have no idea how big it is "inside" itself. My biggest marvel is how things got inside and out, if the opening is the proper size for a fancy handbag. Pretty skillful magic in that bag! >2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver >doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) >pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, >as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did >not attempt to identify the doe? It was a very strange scene. After the Godric's Hollow events, I kept thinking that this was another trap. I kept expecting either for Harry to be attacked or for Herminie to be captured while he was gone. After all, he left her asleep, with no wand, no one on guard. Only the protective spells she had put on the tent/area were left, and if they were enough, why did they always stand guard? >3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? >Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen >the destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this >action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's >mission? I can't see Snape leaving until he knew that Harry was OK. After that things happened quickly. I think he might well have stayed, seen the locket's actions and destruction, and thought about what he had seen and from that figured things out pretty well. He had been a spy for a long time, and a spy wants to find things out. He would never show/tell anyone about what he had discovered, even portrait DD. He had lots of practice keeping secrets. >5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? >Wouldn't Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? >If Harry had wielded the sword, do you think the locket would >have found a way to torment him instead? Certainly the locket would have been able to torment Harry. Everyone has their weaknesses. Perhaps it would have shown him the deaths which he hadn't prevented, Cedric's, DD's, Hedwig's, future deaths, etc. As for why Ron, I don't think it was accident that JKR arranged things that each Horcrux was destroyed by a different person. And the irony that with all Harry's efforts to find and destroy horcruxes, the only one he destroyed was the diary, which he destroyed before he understood what it was. >9. As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he >finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had >cost them." What was the cost? How did Ron's absence affect >their progress? How does his return change things? I think partly it is just the fact that Ron is his best friend. (In spite of the fact that arguments can be made for Herminie being a "better" friend. Logic doesn't enter into feelings in that neat way.) Harry enjoys having Ron around. He might also believe that things could have turned out better at Godric's Hollow if Ron had been there also. Jerri From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Tue Apr 29 14:57:19 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:57:19 -0500 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) References: <1209435036.4800.49134.m42@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182718 Julie said: >I think you hit the nail on the head, Carol. The story JKR wanted >to tell was the story of Harry the boy hero and his two friends >who save the world pretty much all by themselves. . . . SNIP . . . >I think it was our expectations that betrayed us, in part probably >because most of us are mature adults (er, chronologically-speaking >at least ;-) and we found many of the secondary characters as >interesting (myself) or in some cases *more* interesting than the >main protagonist and his two young friends. . . . SNIP . . . >I think also that JKR really WAS writing a children's story. . . . SNIP . . . >I don't call the Harry Potter series "escapist children's >literature" as an insult (and I'm not debating its merits >in comparison to other escapist children's literature). I >just think that is what it turned out to be, despite some >impressions midstream that led me to see more potential >psychological and emotional depth than was actually delivered. >And I would rather view the series as what it is than keep >trying to invest all manner of deep meaning (and/or intent) >where it doesn't (IMO) exist. My question (to Julie or to anyone who can help) is how do you get yourself to do this? Ever since DH, when I found my expectations of the HP series as a whole were destroyed, I have been trying to regain my delight in the HP series as the children's story which I have decided it actually was. I have been struggling with this. I miss my delight and enthusiasm. And yet, I read lots of "escapist children's stories" or perhaps I will call them "fantasy stories intended for children", including but not limited to works by the following authors: E. Nesbit, Edward Eager, Roald Dahl, Pauline Clarke, Eoin Colfer, Lloyd Alexander, Angie Sage, Tamora Pierce, Eva Ibbotson, Hillari Bell, Eleanor Cameron, and Hugh Lofting. Prior to my reading of DH, I found a delight in the HP series that surpassed any and all of the above. I have been struggling to regain my delight, trying to understand the series as a children's series. Every time I try to re-evaluate the series without "deep meaning (and/or intent)" I keep coming across areas that seem to have been intentionally filled with "deep meaning", foreshadowing, parallels with classic literature, etc. It seems to me that JKR had some areas in which she did think things through, plan things, intend to have deep meanings, etc. But lots of other areas she just did what seemed like a good idea at the time. And I can't get the two areas sorted out in my mind. Jerri, struggling to remain a HP fan, or did I waste several years of my life? From hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk Tue Apr 29 15:52:12 2008 From: hutchingslesley at yahoo.co.uk (lesley) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:52:12 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182719 ---> > > Potioncat: > > > The Coolness thread made me think of youth and school and a > > > parent's perspective. > > > > > > So, with that in mind, here's the question. > > > > > > If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to > > > fit in? Why? > > > ... which group of kids would > > > you want to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters > > > would you be most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups > > > appeal to you in the beginning of the series, but with whom > > > you wouldn't want to belong later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) lesley I actually always fancied Snape a little, It's the bad boy thing... Although I never liked draco till the last book!!! I think if i could choose i would have hung out with James and Sirius as they seemed fun (except for the snape incident) I also really liked Lupin..again except for the last book when he went all weird!!! lesley. xxx From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 17:04:05 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:04:05 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: <43e41d1e0804282217i319610a0vdc393405aeed4f22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182720 Julie wrote: > The story JKR wanted to tell was the story of Harry the boy hero and his two friends who save the world pretty much all by themselves. > > Lynda: > This is why I've been so flabbergasted at the disappointment so many have exhibited on this list. The story Rowling told is exactly the one I expected. About a boy named Harry Potter who was saved from death when he was a baby, grew up, went to a school of magic and carried out his destiny. To save the world. Of course, with seven books, there's going to be a lot of extra stuff, but that's what it is. Extra stuff! Not central to the story but peripheral. Carol responds: For many characters, that's true. But neither Snape nor Dumbledore is peripheral. or there would be no need for the "Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross" chapters. I generally prefer to cite canon rather than interviews to prove my points, but, in this instance, JKR's opinion matters: "It was a complicated plotting process but by the time Philosopher's Stone was finished, I definitely knew all the big things about Snape and Dumbledore because in many ways they're the two most important characters in the seventh book Well, other than the trio, Harry, Ron and Hermione." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2008/4/3/jkr-snape-and-dumbledore-two-of-the-most-important-characters-in-deathly-hallows and http://www.gazette-du-sorcier.com/J-K-Rowling-recoit-le-Prix-James,1037 There's more about Snape and DD in the interview, but this is the key snippet. Whatever the case may be with other adult characters, say the Order members in general or the DADA teachers other than Snape, or staff members like Filch and Madam Pince, who are definitely peripheral, Snape and Dumbledore are central to the main plot, second in importance only to HRH. And you don't need to take my word for it. JKR said so herself. Which is not to say that readers who were expecting something more or something different from these key characters (and other adult characters, such as Lupin and various Weasleys, who are fully developed characters and not caricatures like Filch) were not disappointed. And given the hints in the various books (such as Bill's skills as a Curse Breaker) that were not followed up on, we have every right to be disappointed. Carol, who sometimes thinks that JKR's skill at developing characters exceeds the bounds of her plot outline, which ought, perhaps, to have been more flexible From jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com Tue Apr 29 17:42:55 2008 From: jaynesmith62 at btinternet.com (Jayne) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 17:42:55 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Sil In-Reply-To: <001d01c8aa0a$132eacc0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182721 Jeri wrote ---snip > >2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > >doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > >pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > >as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did > >not attempt to identify the doe? > > It was a very strange scene. After the Godric's Hollow events, I kept > thinking that this was another trap. I kept expecting either for > Harry to be attacked or for Herminie to be captured while he was gone. > After all, he left her asleep, with no wand, no one on guard. Only > the protective spells she had put on the tent/area were left, and if > they were enough, why did they always stand guard? I have to say that I had no suspicion at all when I read this book first about the Patronus being Snape's. i wondered if it was Lupin or someone unknown. I had no idea that the doe was conected to Lily either. The eventual reveal about Snape was a total shock. Jayne From danjerri at madisoncounty.net Tue Apr 29 17:38:53 2008 From: danjerri at madisoncounty.net (Jerri/Dan Chase) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:38:53 -0500 Subject: Cool References: <1209471314.2831.11844.m46@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <000201c8aa1f$e84cbb30$64ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> No: HPFGUIDX 182722 I came across another use of the word "cool" in the HP books. In Goblet of Fire, when Harry first meets Bill, Harry is impressed with him, as the only word he can come up with to describe him is "cool", with his clothing that would look proper at a rock concert, long hair in a pony tail, one ear ring with an apparent fang on it, etc. Jerri From sweenlit at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 18:35:01 2008 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:35:01 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> References: <1209435036.4800.49134.m42@yahoogroups.com> <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: <43e41d1e0804291135t32026334maf6c339ebf3cf3cc@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182723 Jerri: My question (to Julie or to anyone who can help) is how do you get yourself to do this? Ever since DH, when I found my expectations of the HP series as a whole were destroyed, I have been trying to regain my delight in the HP series as the children's story which I have decided it actually was. I have been struggling with this. I miss my delight and enthusiasm. Lynda: I never expected it to be more than the story of a boy who saves the world. That's what it was promoted as, that was what I expected. Yes, I enjoyed the secondary characters, but that's what they are: SECONDARY. Not PRIMARY (caps are for emphasis not to indicate yelling). In any series as long as the HP books there are going to be a lot of characters and situations that are just there. Some of them will be addressed and some won't. Just like, when I go down to the bus stop, I see people. Sometimes we chat. Sometimes we don't. But the people I chat with at the bus stop are really, for the most part, minor parts of my life--especially since I live near a battered women's shelter and those ladies only stay in the area for a short period of time. But with only a couple of exceptions, the people who ride the bus are nothing more than casual acquaintances. That doesn't mean I don't have any interest in them, just that they pass through my life and we both go on our ways. The secondary characters in the HP books are something like that I think. Lynda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sweenlit at gmail.com Tue Apr 29 18:46:03 2008 From: sweenlit at gmail.com (Lynda Cordova) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 11:46:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: References: <43e41d1e0804282217i319610a0vdc393405aeed4f22@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <43e41d1e0804291146m1782ef76w701d745800040cbe@mail.gmail.com> No: HPFGUIDX 182724 Carol: For many characters, that's true. But neither Snape nor Dumbledore is peripheral. or there would be no need for the "Prince's Tale" and "King's Cross" chapters. I generally prefer to cite canon rather than interviews to prove my points, but, in this instance, JKR's opinion matters: Lynda: But both Dumbledore's and Snape's stories were told and brought to their conclusions! Could there have been more. Yes. Did there need to be? No. Especially not in a series of books as long as the HP series. Now, if JKR ever chooses to write about either Snape or Dumbledore in other books, I'll be more than happy to read them. Lynda. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 18:50:42 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:50:42 -0000 Subject: Time and Space in The Portrait Universe Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182725 In the recent chapter discussion, a question was asked regarding whether Phineas spend all his time hanging around in Hermione's dark 'beaded bag' just waiting for them to let something slip. Seems a very dull existance. But that does bring up another question in my mind, what is the Portrait's Universe like? First, how many portrait Phineas's are there? Is there just one who wanders from portrait to portrait, or is there one for each portrait, all with identical knowledge and experience. Each merely wandering around in their respective portrait universes. For Phineas-1, his portrait universe is all the portraits in Hogwarts plus the 'portrait room' (more on that later) which represents his own portrait. As Phineas, or any other portrait, perceives it, his personal universe is merely a large room with a window for each portrait he has. When he looks out one window, he see the Headmaster's office. When he looks out the other, he sees out a window into Harry's bedroom at the Black house. (Of course, only while the portrait is in the Black house.) I speculate that the other portraits at Hogwarts represent separate rooms in which the individual portrait characters live. Though strickly speaking it would be literally a room as some of the portraits are outside. But none the less, the metaphorical equivalent of passing from portrait to portrait would be a normal person passing from room to room. So, in this model, for Phineas to check on his Black House portrait, now located in the Beaded Bag, he just has to walk to the otherside of the room. Not, just like a person stepping to the side on a window to be hidden from view. A portrait subject needs merely to step away, or to the side of, the portrait frame. Note when Harry enters his bedroom in the Black House, he senses that Phineas is there, but he can't see him. I believe this happens more than once. Likely Phineas is listening for trouble, but is keeping out of sight. But, do you get a sense of time as Portrait characters move around? When the move within the castle, the seem to move in real time. Yet, when the move between locations the times seems greater than simply walking across the room. Remember in Dumbledore's office, the night Harry had the dream about Arthur, Dumbledore sent various portraits on missions for him. Not huge, but certainly a significant time seems to have elapsed before they return with messages. Even when Dumbledore sends Phineas to tell Sirius that the Weasely will come to visit, a noticeable length of time passed before Phineas return. Still, I guess other factors could account for that time. While this was just a lot of speculation, I can't help wondering exactly what it is like and what is going on behind those portraits? What are the perceptions of time and space in there? Steve/bboyminn From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 18:56:49 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:56:49 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182726 Julie wrote: > >I think you hit the nail on the head, Carol. The story JKR wanted to tell was the story of Harry the boy hero and his two friends who save the world pretty much all by themselves. > > >I think it was our expectations that betrayed us, in part probably because most of us are mature adults (er, chronologically-speaking at least ;-) and we found many of the secondary characters as interesting (myself) or in some cases *more* interesting than the main protagonist and his two young friends. I think also that JKR really WAS writing a children's story. > >I don't call the Harry Potter series "escapist children's >literature" as an insult (and I'm not debating its merits in comparison to other escapist children's literature). I just think that is what it turned out to be, despite some impressions midstream that led me to see more potential psychological and emotional depth than was actually delivered. And I would rather view the series as what it is than keep trying to invest all manner of deep meaning (and/or intent) where it doesn't (IMO) exist. Carol responds: > My question (to Julie or to anyone who can help) is how do you get yourself to do this? Ever since DH, when I found my expectations of the HP series as a whole were destroyed, I have been trying to regain my delight in the HP series as the children's story which I have decided it actually was. I have been struggling with this. I miss my delight and enthusiasm. > It seems to me that JKR had some areas in which she did think things through, plan things, intend to have deep meanings, etc. But lots of other areas she just did what seemed like a good idea at the time. And I can't get the two areas sorted out in my mind. > > Jerri, struggling to remain a HP fan, or did I waste several years of my life? Carol responds: As always, I can only speak for myself. On a first reading (and it was a sleepless, marathon read after waiting till about 1 a.m. to pick up the book and take it home--I was in no fit state to see or speak to anyone!), I was pulled in two directions--the emotional rollercoaster of the events themselves (sorry for the cliche, but I can't think of any other way to express the abrupt changes from excitement to ennui, suspense and horror to humor, etc.) and the conflict between my own hopes and expectations and some of the scenes. I knew when I began the book that JKR could not possibly meet all of my expectations or anyone else's. I expected certain questions to remain unanswered and certain plot resolutions to be different, very different, from what I anticipated. I knew that there would be inconsistencies and coincidences and improbabilities and errors in math and chronology because those are the kinds of things that JKR tends to be careless about and that her editors, who are undoubtedly instructed to do a "light edit," tend not to catch. So I didn't let things like Sirius's letter to Lily bother me; I just read, as I would read a mystery, to find out what happened and to feel the emotions and to find out as much as I could about Snape and his motivation. Unfortunately, I occasionally felt emotions that JKR didn't intend, such as fury at McGonagall for her conduct throughout "The Sacking of Severus Snape," and (bear in mind my sleeplessness and obsession and overall, er, fragile emotional state), fury at JKR for "betraying" me and making me believe that Snape was good. (Obviously, my mind was playing tricks on me and I misinterpreted his actions in that chapter.) "The Prince's Tale," though I didn't like the depiction of Dumbledore and though it was too Lily-focused, was a healing experience, as were Harry's public vindication of Snape and the references to Snape in the epilogue. JKR's view of death was also comforting; I was sure that Snape, like DD (whose hand is healed) and Lupin (who looks younger and surely is no longer a werewolf) is happier in the afterlife than he ever was on earth. At any rate, for me, the first step was to accept what I always knew would be the case, that the book, though it has its beauties and some pleasant surprises (such as "The Doe Patronus") was not and could not be what I (or any other reader) expected it to be. The second was to reconcile myself to developments that I didn't like (DH!Dumbledore was harder to accept than DH!Snape--thank goodness for "King's Cross," where he becomes the familiar flawed but essentially wise and good DD that we've always known as opposed to the puppetmaster that he appears to be (LV actually refers to Harry as "Dumbledore's puppet," but LV's view of things is less than accurate). I'm not recommending denial, just a rereading to put things in perspective. The truth about Dumbledore, part of which we have to figure out to our own satisfaction because JKR has not provided all the answers, is somewhere between Elphias Doge's version and Rita Skeeter's, not to mention Aberforth's, and, of course, the adult Dumbledore is very different from the boy who idolized Gellert Grindelwald and planned to rule the world. The next step, for me, is again, to see what's really there, starting with a rereading of the series and a re-examination of the earlier books in light of the events and revelations in DH (as Alla is doing in her OoP thread). It's fun to look at the clues and foreshadowing, and to examine, for example, DD's remarks about forgetting what it's like to be young in light of what we now know about his youth. I don't think the answer is to reclassify HP as "young adult literature" (I hate that term, as Magpie knows. Teenagers are not young adults. They're adolescents in the throes of puberty and peer pressure, and despite adultlike bodies, they're in many respects immature). The HP books have very little in common with, say, "A Series of Unfortunate Events," where the children are unrealistically brilliant and the villain is obviously and unambiguously and irredeemably evil. There are no gray characters; everything is what it appears to be, no interpretation required. HRH, in contrast, are flawed. they make mistakes; they misinterpret events and people; they occasionally do things that, from a moral and ethical perspective, they probably shouldn't do, such as invading other people's privacy (Snape's Pensieve memories) or spying (interesting how Harry's following Draco around parallels Severus's following the Marauders) or cheating on their homework or taking revenge (Hermione's blackmailing of Rita Skeeter, for example) or casting Unforgiveable Curses (Harry's assorted Crucios, successful and otherwise). They experience realistic emotions, ranging from euphoria to fury, including adolescent crushes and petty jealousy. They even fight among themselves. (Ron's departure and return make for one of the most poignant moments in the whole series, IMO--though, of course, he also performs some heroic feats in that chapter--all with, as Deb says, the subtext of Snape in the background.) So, if you're disillusioned with the books, the next step might be to think about what JKR does well. That will be different for each reader, of course. Speaking only for myself, I think she handles horror brilliantly. The GoF chapter in which Wormtail resurrects Voldemort is probably the first example. Others that I recall offhand are the cave scene in HBP and Bathilda!Nagini and the death of Snape in DH. (Nagini is, I think, much more horrifying than the Basilisk in CoS, but possibly the Basilisk has been spoiled for me by too many rereadings or by the film version.) Voldemort may be a disappointing villain in many respects, chiefly because we're told rather than shown, what he can do, but Snape, love him or hate him, is a beautifully delineated character and the misdirection balanced by hints at his true loyalties is, I think, sustained quite well even into DH. You might think about your favorite chapters or chapters that had a profound emotional effect on you (other than rage at JKR for "betraying" you, which I first felt and had to deal with through a reexamination of the evidence in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" in HBP. Or you can look at the books to see how they blend different genres--mystery, Bildungsroman/school story, heroic quest--and violate or don't violate the expectations of those novels. You can look at her use of mythology and folklore or her wordplay or her humor or her narrative technique or her symbolism and imagery. (Were all those references to snape's movements as batlike merely foreshadowing his ability to fly in DH or was there more to them?) And irony. It's everywhere, as is flawed perception. Just because DH isn't what we expected (and doesn't fit with the preconceptions that we formed from her interviews, which she might have been better off not giving, or, at least, her readers might be better off without) doesn't mean that we should reject it. We expected an apple and got a hybrid apricot/lemon/persimmon. Should we reject it out of hand? Or should we figure out what it really is, what's really there? As you've undoubtedly noticed, the books are still open to interpretation, not only DH but the series as a whole. And the more JKR attempts to answer our questions, the more I think that we're better off examining the books and finding those answers for ourselves. For all their faults, for all the failures of DH to meet the expectations that we ourselves formed, partly based on our discussion here, partly based on her interviews, partly based on our own reading and interpretation of various characters, there's still a lot to be discussed and discovered in these books, and the answer is not, IMO only, to dismiss them as "escapist children's literature" (though there are elements of that genre, such as the relative absence of adult help for the young protagonists in DH) or to consider the years we've spent reading and analyzing the HP books as wasted. Authors deliberately create a plot and characters, but much of the writing of a book is subconscious. An author's values and reading and experience shape what she writes, turning it into something new, a synthesis and imaginative recreation of what is already in her mind. I thought, on reading the first few chapters on Hogwarts in SS/PS, that she had simply taken Halloween witches and Merlin-style wizards and stuck them in a school. And then I encountered Severus Snape and realized that JKR's genius lay, not in creating a new world that in many respects resembled our own with a Gothic facade and an overlay of magic, but in the creation of memorable characters and occasionally brilliant dialogue. Since then, I've discoveed other aspects of her writing, such as her narrative technique and the layers of irony and ambiguity that pervade certain events, and the chains of unintended consequences that flow from the actions of multiple characters, starting with the Prophecy and eavesdropping but also Harry's mercy toward Wormtail abd DD's secrecy and much else. Let's say that you gave your mother a CD for Christmas or her birthday and she opened it eagerly, expecting it to be Beethoven. It turns out to be your favorite rock band. Should she reject it out of hand because it isn't the work of a great classical composer or should she listen to it and appreciate it on its own terms? JK Rowling isn't JRR Tolkien. She isn't anyone but herself. And just as her characters are flawed (often deliberately), her books are also flawed. But LOTR and "Moby Dick" and the plays of Shakespeare and many other great literary and dramatic works are also flawed, but we don't stop reading them because we don't like the handling of certain themes and characters. In JKR's case, I think we are setting ourselves up for disappointment if we expect her books to be great literary classics. But they *are* literature, and we owe it to ourselves, given the time and emotional investment we've put into them, to see what's really there, examine it as objectively as possible, and interpret it rationally, not based on our hopes and expectations (or what JKR says in interviews) but on the words as they appear on the printed page, not taken at face value but with an awareness of the limitations of her chosen point of view and of Harry's tendency toward misperception or partial awareness and understanding (presumably corrected at the end of the series, Ron's persistence in old attitudes notwithstanding). Carol, merely suggesting a cure for disillusionment that worked for her, not suggesting that her view is the correct one From irenem316 at comcast.net Tue Apr 29 18:55:35 2008 From: irenem316 at comcast.net (irenematt02176) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 18:55:35 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182727 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Debbie" wrote: > > 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? > Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the > destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this > action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? Irene: When Harry came to, one of the first things he did was run to the trees to see who, if anyone, was behind them after Ron told him that he'd seen movement there. If Snape was still there he would have had to disapperate before Harry saw him. I think he stayed until he saw that both Ron and Harry were out of the lake and the sword was recovered. I also think that Ron saw movement behind the trees because Snape was about to run to Harry's rescue when he heard Ron coming. So, he did not see the destruction of the locket, but if he did see it he would have also heard the locket taunt Ron in Voldy's voice and I think he would have known immediately what was going on. > 4. The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian > legend. JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and > reworking those legends for her own purposes. Is that what happened > here? Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur? If so, how? And > what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who > succeeded in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor? Irene: Finding, retrieving and/or being given a sword (or the signficant weapon)is a very important part of the hero's journey in the legends and mythologies of many cultures. It often signifies that the recipient is worthy and is now ready to face the most difficult and dangerous challenges - Harry in the COS - Ron with the locket - Neville with the snake. Thanks Debbie - great questions. Irene From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 19:13:35 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:13:35 -0000 Subject: Cool In-Reply-To: <000201c8aa1f$e84cbb30$64ae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182728 Jerri wrote: > > I came across another use of the word "cool" in the HP books. In Goblet of Fire, when Harry first meets Bill, Harry is impressed with him, as the only word he can come up with to describe him is "cool", with his clothing that would look proper at a rock concert, long hair in a pony tail, one ear ring with an apparent fang on it, etc. Carol responds: Excellent example of what Harry at fourteen regards as "cool." The question is, why does Harry view him this way? Is the twenty-something Bill the sole representative of WW youth culture? He seems to be imitating Muggle rock singers rather than anything in the WW, including the Weird Sisters. (Is Tonks, with her pink hair and Weird Sisters T-shirt at the end of OoP, also "cool"? He never uses that word to describe her.) Is there any connection between Bill's perceived "coolness" and MWPP as (according to Lupin, at least) "the height of cool" in their generation? (Actually, they're only about eleven years older than Bill, disregarding JKR's maths relating to Charlie and Quidditch.) And is this the view of "coolness" that Harry holds at the end of the books? (Neville and Luna start out as decidedly "uncool" in Harry's opinion.) I'm not sure whether Harry rejects "coolness" as a criterion for judging people or whether he redefines the concept to include the likes of Neville and Luna. And what about Cedric, who is intelligent and talented and brave and kind, but I don't recall the adjective "cool" ever being applied to him. Is "coolness" just superficial? Or is Bill "cooler" after he's attacked by Fenrir Greyback and scarred for life than he was when he was handsome and trendy (and rejecting the clothing and hairstyles approved by his mother). Sidenote and not a serious one: If a "dirty great fang" hanging from your ear makes you "cool," why not radish earrings? Carol, thanking Jerri for the example and hoping that it will lead to further discussion From sistermagpie at earthlink.net Tue Apr 29 19:51:53 2008 From: sistermagpie at earthlink.net (sistermagpie) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 19:51:53 -0000 Subject: Cool In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182729 > Carol responds: > Excellent example of what Harry at fourteen regards as "cool." The > question is, why does Harry view him this way? Is the twenty-something > Bill the sole representative of WW youth culture? He seems to be > imitating Muggle rock singers rather than anything in the WW, > including the Weird Sisters. Magpie: That always cracks me up in GoF, because Bill sounds like he just stepped out of a hair band video from the 80s--iow, he doesn't quite make the right impression on me! I assume Tonks is also supposed to be cool, particularly with her Weird Sisters tee-shirt, but they're all handicapped by the lack of pop culture in the WW (nobody else even wears band tee-shirts). There seems to be only one band that we only hear about so that Dumbledore can somehow get them to play the Yule Ball to prove how cool he is (it's not like music or anything like that actually plays a part in the teenaged culture that we see), though that in itself undermines their status as a band. I think in general JKR uses "cool" the way most people do, to both describe people who are socially smooth and to describe people who are, for lack of a better word, mensches. Neville and Luna are the latter-- though in an interview I believe JKR encouraged us to see Neville as the former as well because he lived over a pub. -m From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 20:02:24 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:02:24 -0000 Subject: Time and Space in The Portrait Universe plus a correction to the In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182730 Carol: First a quick correction to an unrelated post in the escapist literature thread: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/182726 Carol earlier: >Carol responds: > > My question (to Julie or to anyone who can help) is how do you get yourself to do this? > > Jerri, struggling to remain a HP fan, or did I waste several years of my life? > > Carol responds: > As always, I can only speak for myself. Carol again: Sorry, Jerri! Obviously, I was quoting you and misattributed the quote to myself. The second "Carol responds" is really me. Hope I didn't confuse anybody. Now to Steve's post: Steve wrote: > > In the recent chapter discussion, a question was asked regarding whether Phineas spend all his time hanging around in Hermione's dark 'beaded bag' just waiting for them to let something slip. Seems a very dull existance. > > But that does bring up another question in my mind, what is the Portrait's Universe like? > > First, how many portrait Phineas's are there? Is there just one who wanders from portrait to portrait, or is there one for each portrait, all with identical knowledge and experience. Carol: Given that Phineas and the some of the other headmasters move from portrait to portrait and that the canvas is blank when they're not there, I'd say only one. Steve: > As Phineas, or any other portrait, perceives it, his personal universe is merely a large room with a window for each portrait he has. When he looks out one window, he see the Headmaster's office. When he looks out the other, he sees out a window into Harry's bedroom at the Black house. (Of course, only while the portrait is in the Black house.) > > I speculate that the other portraits at Hogwarts represent separate rooms in which the individual portrait characters live. > So, in this model, for Phineas to check on his Black House portrait, now located in the Beaded Bag, he just has to walk to the otherside of the room. > > Not, just like a person stepping to the side on a window to be hidden from view. A portrait subject needs merely to step away, or to the side of, the portrait frame. Note when Harry enters his bedroom in the Black House, he senses that Phineas is there, but he can't see him. I believe this happens more than once. Likely Phineas is listening for trouble, but is keeping out of sight. Carol responds: This is an interesting theory, but I don't think there's only one room. In Phineas's case, there's the room he was painted in at Hogwarts and the room he was painted in for his portrait at the Black house. So when he steps out of his frame to listen to Harry, he's still at the Black house. He can't eavesdrop on Harry from DD's office (or converse with HRH from Snape's). He has to leave one portrait and go to the other. (And if there were two Phineases, there would be no need for either portrait to be blank; one could converse with the other.) Steve: > But, do you get a sense of time as Portrait characters move around? When the move within the castle, the seem to move in real time. Yet, when the move between locations the times seems greater than simply walking across the room. Remember in Dumbledore's office, the night Harry had the dream about Arthur, Dumbledore sent various portraits on missions for him. Not huge, but certainly a significant time seems to have elapsed before they return with messages. Even when Dumbledore sends Phineas to tell Sirius that the Weasely will come to visit, a noticeable length of time passed before Phineas return. Still, I guess other factors could account for that time. Carol responds: I think they're also moving in real time. They can probably transport themselves instantly from a portrait in the headmaster's office to a portrait somewhere else using something like Apparition. (Being two-dimensional, they wouldn't be bound by the anti-Apparition spells that prevent living Wizards from Apparating or Disapparating in Hogwarts or on its grounds.) In fact, they can probably move faster that way than they would moving from portrait to portrait in Hogwarts, just as live!DD can get from Hogsmeade to 4 Privet Drive faster than he can get from his office to the Great Hall. The time it takes for Dilys and Everard to return in OoP is accounted for by their having to wait and watch what's going on. Everard has to call for help and tell the security guards or whoever comes running that he heard a noise downstairs, watch them bringing Mr. Weasley up the stairs, and run to the Atrium to watch them carrying him out. Dilys has to wait till they arrive at St. Mungo's, which would be only a short time later if they can Disapparate carrying an injured man on a stretcher, longer if they need to find some other means of transporting him. As soon as they have the information that DD needs, they return to their portraits. (Phineas Nigellus takes even longer to return after he learns that his great-great-grandson is dead. Harry imagines him wandering from room to room, portrait to portrait, in the Black house, which seems to have at least four floors, looking for Sirius.) > > While this was just a lot of speculation, I can't help wondering exactly what it is like and what is going on behind those portraits? What are the perceptions of time and space in there? Carol responds: I don't know whether portraits, which are not exactly alive and can't die, even though they can sleep and think and talk and eat painted food and drink painted wine and travel within severe restrictions, are aware of time--except that they're aware of being bored when DD is gone because they have nothing to do except talk to each other. As for space, it must appear three-dimensional to them within their portraits and other paintings or the Fat Lady couldn't eat and drink and Sir Cadogan couldn't pick up a sword and attempt to ride a pony. (Admittedly, these two portraits aren't in DD's office, but surely, the headmasters' portraits are similar, and since Phineas can hide inside his portrait and pretend to be gone, he must have some room to move around.) At a guess, I would say that within their portraits, they can move around the room they were painted in. They can also move to other rooms or painted landscapes within Hogwarts or other rooms in which they were painted. Each portrait serves as a window onto a small segment of the "real" WW--Harry's bedroom at 12 GP or the headmaster's office or the waiting room at St. Mungo's or a corridor in the MoM. (Everard at the MoM, Phineas at 12 GP, and, theoretically, Dilys at St. Mungo's, could move from portrait to portrait (painted room to painted room) in those places just as they can at Hogwarts.) Of course, when Phineas is in the beaded bag, his movements are rather more restricted, unless he wants to go back to Snape's office, and he has no view at all. Poor Phineas. Only loyalty to Snape and the love of spying (and making snippy remarks when he's out of the bag could compensate for such a boring existence. Carol, enjoying this topic and glad that JKR used Phineas so effectively in DH From bboyminn at yahoo.com Tue Apr 29 23:14:31 2008 From: bboyminn at yahoo.com (Steve) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:14:31 -0000 Subject: Time and Space in The Portrait Universe... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182731 --- "Carol" wrote: > > ... > > Steve wrote: > > > > ..., a question was asked regarding whether Phineas spend > > all his time hanging around in Hermione's dark 'beaded bag' > > .... Seems a very dull existance. > > > > But that does bring up another question in my mind, what > > is the Portrait's Universe like? > > > > First, how many portrait Phineas's are there? Is there just > > one who wanders from portrait to portrait, or is there one > > for each portrait, all with identical knowledge and > > experience. > > Carol: > Given that Phineas and the some of the other headmasters move > from portrait to portrait and that the canvas is blank when > they're not there, I'd say only one. > bboyminn: Putting aside Phineas for a moment, let's look at 'living' portraits in general. Let's take a hypothetical person and say they have their first historic living portrait painted when they are age 30, say after some big historic discovery. Next, once they have established a long and lustrious career, they have another living portrait painted at age 70. How can their only be one person for all portraits? Perhaps, when they appear in a portrait, it is like an enchanted window, and they appear younger or older as is appropriate because of that enchanted window effect. Still, it is somewhat of a dilemma when you have a character painted when young then when old, plus a casual portrait for themselves - say engaged in some hobby like hunting, and a formal portrait for some special occasion where they are dressed in formal clothes. Again, is it the enchanted window effect that changes the single character to the appropriate appearance based on the portrait frame they are appearing out of? And what about Chocolate Frog Cards, there must be thousands of Chocolate Frog Dumbledore's out there. Does one Dumbledore move between all those cards? I suspect these are questions were aren't suppose to ask, but none the less, I find myself curious. > Steve: > > As Phineas.., perceives..., his personal universe is merely > > a large room with a window for each portrait he has. When > > he looks out one window, he see the Headmaster's office. > > When he looks out the other, he sees out a window into > > Harry's bedroom at the Black house. > > ... > > > > I speculate that the other portraits at Hogwarts represent > > separate rooms in which the individual portrait characters > > live. > > > So..., for Phineas to check on his Black House portrait, > > ..., he just has to walk to the other side of the room. > > > > ... > > Carol responds: > This is an interesting theory, but I don't think there's only > one room. In Phineas's case, there's the room he was painted > in at Hogwarts and the room he was painted in for his portrait > at the Black house. So when he steps out of his frame to > listen to Harry, he's still at the Black house. bboyminn: Right, that was the point I was making, just because he is out of the frame, doesn't mean he is out of the 'room' or the 'house'. But this bring up another point, you say, that if a portrait was painted in two differnent rooms, those room represent his personal universe. If he is going from Hogwarts to the Black House, he has to step out of one room and into another. Those rooms being the room he was painted in. So, in a sense a character inhabits a 'room' in a 'house'. For Phineas, he from his perspective has two adjoining 'houses' which are joined by two adjoining rooms. To go from his room at Hogwarts, he must leave that room and enter his portrait-world room at the Black House. So, he has two portrait universe rooms in two portrait universe houses. His two rooms adjoin to connect his two house. That might work. However, he could just as easily have one room common to both houses in the portrait universe. That room being the section that adjoins the two houses. Here's why. What if the portraits were not painted in a real room in a real home? What if the portraits were painted in a studio against a room like backdrop? Now what does his portrait universe room look like? Is it a literal representation of the studio he was painted in? Or is it a figurative representation of the room that the backdrop and furniture symbolized? Couldn't it be that, for a given portrait character, there is only one /personal/ room that appears differently from the outside when viewed from different angles, meaning through different portrait frames? > > Steve: > > But, do you get a sense of time as Portrait characters move > > around? When the move within the castle, the seem to move > in real time. Yet, when the move between locations the times > seems greater than simply walking across the room. ... > > Carol responds: > I think they're also moving in real time. They can probably > transport themselves instantly from a portrait in the > headmaster's office to a portrait somewhere else using > something like Apparition. ... > bboyminn: Still the time seems odd. Certainly the portraits seem to move in real time and something like real space when they move from portrait to portrait as when Sir Cadagon followed Harry down the hallway. But do they move in real (portrait world) space? Can you move from any given portrait directly to any other given portrait in the same location? Or, do you have to start from the portrait you are in, go to the next closest one, then to the closest to that, gradually working your way through the castle until you come to the portrait you want. Certainly, as I illustrated earlier, we have seen them move linearly from one portrait to the next, but is that mandatory, or is it coincidental to the immediate circumstances? Are they simply in a room with many doors, and they can proceed sequentially, or they can jump directly from the current portrait to any other portrait in one easy step. Does anyone remember portrait characters moving in a non- linear fashion? > > bboyminn: > > > > While this was just a lot of speculation, I can't help > > wondering exactly what it is like and what is going on > > behind those portraits? What are the perceptions of time > and space in there? > > Carol responds: > I don't know whether portraits, which are not exactly alive > and can't die, even though they can sleep and think and talk > and eat painted food and drink painted wine and travel within > severe restrictions, are aware of time--except that they're > aware of being bored when DD is gone because they have nothing > to do except talk to each other. As for space, it must appear > three-dimensional to them within their portraits ... since > Phineas can hide inside his portrait and pretend to be gone, > he must have some room to move around.) ... bboyminn: Well, likely we will never resolve it, but I still find the whole existence of a portrait universe behind those painting to be very fascinating, and can't help wonder what life is like in the portrait world. I suspect mostly very boring. But, on the other hand, portraits do seem to eat and drink, and in their own way, seem to raise a degree of hell. I also can't help wondering since they eat and get drunk, if there aren't a few late night trysts going on? Which in turn leads me to wonder about the possibility of unintended portrait babies. It's a very confusing universe. Just a thought. (Can't stop myself you know.) Steve/bboyminn From nirupama76 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 00:41:29 2008 From: nirupama76 at yahoo.com (nirupama76) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 00:41:29 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182732 > > > Potioncat: > > > The Coolness thread made me think of youth and school and a > > > parent's perspective. > > > > > > So, with that in mind, here's the question. > > > > > > If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to > > > fit in? Why? > > > ... which group of kids would > > > you want to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters > > > would you be most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups > > > appeal to you in the beginning of the series, but with whom > > > you wouldn't want to belong later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) > > > > Montavilla47: > > I think I'd like to hang out with the Hufflepuffs, myself. ... > > > > I never much cared for the jocks, so I think I'd stay away from the > > Griffyndors. But I have always liked Neville, so I think if I were > > in Harry's generation, I'd want to hang out with him. > > Seamus and Dean also seem nice. > > > > I might like the girls, but I'm not ... as girly as they seem to be, > > (the giggling and boy talk and all that), so I would have, like > > Hermione, sought out the boys for friendship. > > > > But, alpha male boys are no fun at all. > > So, not Harry and not Draco. > > Kemper now: > I don't see Harry as alpha. He is not interested in being in charge. > He'd rather be alone or with few others. When he does take charge he > is thrust into it rather than seeking it out (DADA professor/Team > captain). As a leader, he seems a good. Niru writes: I don't see Harry as an alpha male either. He would rather be left alone and have a few good friends. Draco is a bit of an alpha male though. Anyway, as a kid I would have loved to hang out with Harry, Ron, and Hermione. I reckon that Hermione would have had a lot to talk about since we share the "bookworm" nature. Interestingly enough I'd have probably hung out with Luna as well (she's more weird than I am but not by much). I guess it means that Hermione would probably have run a mile rather than be caught dead in my company (initially at least). :-) As an adult I would have liked the company of Remus. Probably the bookish thing again. But James and Sirius would have been good too... lots of laughs there hopefully. And Hagrid too just because he's a nice person. - Niru From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 30 03:38:23 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 03:38:23 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182733 Jerri: > My question (to Julie or to anyone who can help) is how do you get > yourself to do this? Ever since DH, when I found my expectations of > the HP series as a whole were destroyed, I have been trying to regain my delight in the HP series as the children's story which I have decided it actually was. I have been struggling with this. I miss my delight and enthusiasm. > > It seems to me that JKR had some areas in which she did think things > through, plan things, intend to have deep meanings, etc. But lots of > other areas she just did what seemed like a good idea at the time. > And I can't get the two areas sorted out in my mind. > Pippin: I can only speak for myself, but I think we adult readers are meant to become disenchanted, not just with the Potterverse but with what we might call the consensus universe of modern fantasy: archaic social structures, one-dimensional characters and most of all the escape from moral complexity. No Tolkien characters ever had to look at what they'd done and ask if they were any better than Sauron -- either they are, or they no longer care. Now, JKR isn't saying that escapism is wrong, IMO, but at least I think she'd like her adult readers to understand that it *is* escapism -- that life in such a place would not be nearly as nice as we like to imagine it would be, not if the populace bore any resemblance to actual human beings. I think that like Terry Pratchett JKR has taken the world of magical heroes and tried to imagine how it would work if it were populated by real people instead of one-dimensional archetypes. But JKR takes it further. Pratchett heroes can be Machiavellian, cowardly, manipulative, clueless, close-minded etc, but always for comic effect, never to the point where the reader starts to lose respect for them. JKR dared to cross that line, and so we have choices: a)We can lose our respect for the heroes, and with it all delight in their victory and the world they saved. b)We can read with the innocent heart of a child, making no more demands than a child would make. To a child, IMO, Harry's crucio is Harry's crucio -- it's neither a commentary on the permissibility of torture in the real world, nor an unforgivable thing for which there has to be some consequence. To the child, IMO, the story does not need to say whether Harry made a mistake and learned better, or whether he was right in the first place. Harry came out all right, and so he must have made whatever the child thinks the right choices would be, because that's the way it works in stories. c) We can put moral blinkers on and overlook behavior that would otherwise be egregious (and it's scary how easily we adults can do this when it's a character we want to admire.) Children, of course, are notoriously less willing to pretend that the emperor's not naked. Or, and this is what I believe what JKR is hoping we will do d)We can forgive. We have the opportunity to be like Dumbledore and hand out second chances knowing full well that our mercy might be abused, knowing that we might be fools, not even knowing whether there's any chance of repentance or remorse. That's not easy. But that's the way it is for grownups. Children in their innocence believe that doing the right thing is easy for good people, and only hard for bad ones. Adults understand that to be good often requires doing what is hard, and that sometimes despite our best intentions, we may fail. But for the adult, IMO, that doesn't make us bad -- it only makes us human. Pippin From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Apr 30 04:51:56 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:51:56 -0000 Subject: Find your Niche In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182734 Potioncat > If you were in this wizarding world, where you fit in, or want to fit > in? Why? Not, where would you be sorted or want to be sorted although > that could be part of it. Rather, which group of kids would you want > to hang out with? Or, as an adult, which characters would you be > most comfortable with? Did any kids or groups appeal to you in the > beginning of the series, but with whom you wouldn't want to belong > later. (Yes, Lily, I mean you.) > > You can choose from any of the generations. Support your choices > with canon, or we'll have to go behind the greenhouses to discuss it. Oryomai: Hehehe...I miss the more whimsical threads we could have before DH. Onto the question at hand: I still want to be in Slytherin. I'd much rather hang out with the Slytherins of the Marauder Era. I think that, throughout the series, these Slytherins have been shown to be the more complicated ones. Severus has his love of Lily (which I still think is lame *eg*); Regulus defected from the Death Eaters and took the locket out of the cave -- makes me wish Sirius was nicer to Kreacher...maybe we could've got that info earlier... Those Slytherins seem to have complicated lives while the Slytherins of Harry's time are more one dimensional. Draco is the only one who isn't completely static throughout the series and that is due to events beyond his control. I thought the Marauders were cool when I first read about them. I imagine they're the group I would've secretly wanted to join while hating them to the outside world. After finishing the series, I wouldn't want to have anything to do with the Marauders in real (fantasy) life...except maybe for Remus. Oryomai Who is graduating college on Saturday! Woo! From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed Apr 30 04:53:37 2008 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:53:37 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182735 > > Alla: > > Okay, this is very nicely said, so you are arguing that DD decided to fight only for those who are weaker in different aspects, yes? Pippin: Exactly. > > > Pippin: > It might > even explain why he was hands-off with the Dursleys. Who was really > the weaker party? The magical and possibly deathless child or the > mean-spirited but merely mortal and Muggle Dursleys? > > Alla: > > Child I would say without any doubt IMO. Ariana was also a magical > child, yes? And she was attacked by three little muggle creeps and > hurt very badly. So I do not know how many times Dursleys could have > damage Harry, irrevocably that is IMO. Thanks Dumbledore. Pippin: But don't you see that Harry was surrounded with the magical protections that Dumbledore failed to give Ariana? And that unlike the Muggles who attacked Dumbledore's sister, Petunia was just as fiercely devoted to keeping Harry alive as Snape was? She didn't love Harry -- but she never wanted him dead, and put her own family at risk to protect him. Considering what would have happened to Harry if Voldemort had realized about the soul bit -- the soul bit Dumbledore only had to look at baby Harry to suspect -- and I think one can understand why Dumbledore thought the blood protection would have been worth a much greater price than Harry had to pay for it. Dumbledore says he was prepared to find Harry in far worse shape than he actually was when he returned. Dumbledore wished the Dursleys would take good care of Harry -- but trying to make them do it, even with Dumbledore's manipulative skills, would have been like trying to trim fingernails with an axe. He's just too powerful, and they're too weak. Even bouncing wine glasses off their heads seemed like bullying to a lot of people. And Dumbledore would remember what had happened to his father when he tried to teach some Muggles a lesson. > > Alla: > > See this part I do not get at all. It is not like plan gets to > Voldemort by accident. Dumbledore deliberately, I repeat deliberately tells Snape to **deliver information**. What does Dumbledore think Voldemort will do with it if not attack? Pippin: Dumbledore thinks Voldemort will send his DE's to intercept Harry, but they will be foiled by the polyjuice -- they won't know which one is the real Harry so it won't be safe to attack any of them. He thinks that Voldemort ought to have learned from Ollivander that Harry's wand has absorbed Voldemort's magic and can defend itself from him. The last thing Voldie should have wanted was to give Harry another opportunity to outduel him in front of his DE's. Alla: > And heee, you are saying Voldemort would have hunted for information? > SURE, but why make it easy on him? Maybe he would have gotten it > maybe not, but that would not be because White bearded man or his > portrait betrayed the information to Voldemort. > Pippin: In all canon, only a few people are able to keep Voldemort from finding out something he wanted to know: Albus Dumbledore, Severus Snape, and the Trio. Dumbledore knows this, therefore he knows that any secret known to someone outside that group is vulnerable. It is like Snape outing Lupin, IMO: there was no longer any reasonable hope of keeping the secret -- not long enough to make a difference. > Pippin: > IMO the "epitome of goodness" remark needs to be considered in > context. JKR was answering a question about whether writing good > characters was boring, and her answer applied to the characters she > created, not good people in general, IMO. Was there a better example > than Dumbledore of a good character in the books at that time? > > Alla: > > Oh that lovely remark again. Where JKR does says that DD is an > epitome of goodness among her characters? Pippin: Here's the quote in context: E: Is there a sense that some people say good characters are boring and evil characters are always the more interesting. And there's the famous line about Milton and of course he writes Paradise Lost and God is a bore and the devil is interesting. JK: Well, you see, Harry is good. And I personally do not find Harry boring at all. I mean, he has his faults. Ron and Hermione are both very good characters but they're My voice sounds incredibly loud when we stop this train. (Laughs) E: (Laughing) No, it's lovely. JK: No, I'm not bored by goodness. I'm not bored by goodness. E: Do you have more fun writing the evil characters? Because Voldemort [the sinister wizard who killed Harry's parents] is the quintessential evil character. JK: Yeah, he's a bad one. Do I have more fun? I loved writing Dumbledore and Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. Pippin: See, she's talking about good characters, and how they're interesting because they have their faults, and how Dumbledore is not boring to write although he's a typical example of goodness. It's the interviewer who compared the good characters to God and the evil characters to Satan, not JKR. Alla" > I have no problem with her lying in the interviews to protect plot. I think she was entitled to. I just wish she did not open her mouth and said she never did lie. I find it hard to interpret this remark as anything but lie OR if I am generous the biggest joke from her ever. Pippin: She said she intended to be devious -- "I know exactly what's going to be in five, six and seven. And when I've finished that, then we can have the full and frank discussion, but until then, if I give full and frank answers I'm giving away things about the plot, so I don't want to do that." But I don't think, except for things like the character who was supposed to show magic in later life and got cut from the plot, that she said much that turned out to be untrue or that was misleading in the sense that no ambiguous reading was possible. Forex, if you read the secret keeper answer on the web, it says absolutely nothing that is contradicted by later canon. The status of the secret remains as it was when the secret keeper dies. That's *true* --the secret remains known to those who knew it already. But the language is ambiguous -- *when* the secret keeper dies the status of the secret remains the same. What happens *after* the secret keeper dies, ah, that would be telling . Pippin From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Apr 30 05:01:49 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:01:49 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182736 Debbie: > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's > location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is > open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all > this time? Why is he willing to do this? Oryomai: I thought that perhaps Severus had told Phineas to keep watch on what the three of them were doing. Phineas would assume it was due to Harry's status as Undesirable Number One and wouldn't question a Slytherin headmaster anyway. > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did > not attempt to identify the doe? Oryomai: I had no idea where the silver doe had come from. It never crossed my mind that it was Severus. I still had hope that he was on the side of good, but I imagined him having a "darker" Patronus...actually, I didn't believe he had any happy memories from which to make one. On a personal note, I have to say that Lily being represented by the doe because James was a stag is offensive to me -- I don't think she should be defined by her relationship to James alone. But I digress... > 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't > Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had > wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to > torment him instead? Oryomai: I think it just had to be. Ron and Hermione had been on this trip with him, had both risked their lives. They deserved to be part of the solution. If Ron hadn't showed up when he did, Harry would have drowned. Save the day, destroy the Horcrux. > 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a > prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I > have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you > dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about > Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the > torturing? Oryomai: That Ron's not as dumb as he may appear. There's no way that Ron does not suffer all the time from the weight of being the best friend of the famous Harry Potter. He desires the fame that comes with being part of the Trio, but he fears that he will be shoved to the background every time Harry comes along. I don't think the Horcrux!Locket had to be that smart of a magical object to figure that out *eg*. > 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before > he destroys the locket Horcrux? Oryomai: I think he almost went over to the Dark Side. The Horcrux was showing him his worst fears, and it probably crossed his mind that he would be able to be the famous one if he didn't destroy it. The scarlet in Tom's eyes affect everyone around him. > 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of > Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant > Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? Oryomai: We get it JKR. Gryffindors are good, Slytherins are bad. Yeah, got it. > 11. This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the > subtext is all Snape. Is there a connection between these two > characters? How are they alike. To what extent are their > differences the result of circumstances rather than character? Oryomai: I think there is a connection. They are both self conscious boys from families that are not well off. I think alot of the differences between them are due to the family life they each had. Ron had a loving family while Severus had parents that constantly fought. Ron is tempted by the power that the Horcrux offers him and is only able to turn it down because he has known familial love. The closest thing Severus ever had to a family was the Death Eaters. Oryomai Fab questions! From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 05:54:22 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:54:22 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182737 > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's > location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is > open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all > this time? Why is he willing to do this? Zgirnius: I agree with everyone who has cited his apparent fondness for/pride in Snape, and his obligation to serve Snape, the Headmaster. I disagree the bag is cramped. It appears to contain a capacious storage area, from which assorted objects can fly to within arm's reach of the bag's mouth. It might also be an interesting place to be, since clearly Harry is the one doing things and going places on Albus's orders. Finally, Hogwarts is probably a somewhat depressing place to roam around compared ot previous years. > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > as misdirection? Was it effective? Zgirnius: I got up and interrupted my all-night reading for a brief but enthusiastic victory dance when the sword showed up. George's ear caused me considerable unrest (and still caused me some confusion after this scene) but this was when I was certain I had been right about the important points of Snape's story (Lily, and Dumbledore's Man). Why was I so sure? First, I had been convinced that no one else knew Albus had wanted Snape to kill him, so I was on the lookout for anonymous ways for Harry to receive help. A mysterious Patronus fir the bill. Second, Snape was the person with the best opportunity to get the real sword. (If Albus had switched them before his death, this might not be the case, but I did not start to wonder whether Albus's trust of Snape was genuine ? merely whether it had been well placed.) And finally, feeling certain it was Snape's, it was not much of a leap to connect it to Lily. Did she intend it as misdirection and did it work? I think perhaps it did. I've read a lot of speculation in my day about Snape's Patronus, and bats, unpleasant magical creatures of various sorts, and snakes all tended to feature prominently in such discussions. Fans going into DH with such expectations might find the doe unSnapelike. > 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? > Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the > destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this > action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? Zgirnius: We have no way of knowing. The level of magic we know Snape to be capable of would permit him to observe the scene in secret. I think just as Ron arrived on the scene, he was emerging from behind the two trees to rescue Harry, and realized this was no longer necessary. I think he would have stuck around long enough to see the sword was retrieved and Harry was relatively unharmed, at the least, but he could have stayed longer. Disillusioned and perched up in the tree, or what have you, I also do not think it would actually have affected any of his observed behavior. If he spent nights reviewing Horcrux lore, neither we nor Harry have any idea. This evening, I am of the mind that he left once Harry was clearly safe. He asked Albus why Harry needed the sword, and Albus refused to answer, right before these events. He could have insisted, to Albus's face. I don't think he went behind his back instead. > 4. The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian > legend. JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and > reworking those legends for her own purposes. Is that what happened > here? Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur? If so, how? And > what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who > succeeded in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor? Zgirnius: If Harry is Arthur, I guess that makes Ron, Lancelot. At least in his own mind, Ron is in love with Harry's girl. > 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't > Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? If Harry had > wielded the sword, do you think the locket would have found a way to > torment him instead? Zgirnius: If Dumbledore is to be believed, it had to be Ron. It was Ron that retrieved the sword under the necessary conditions of "need and valor". I think the locket would have found a way to attack anyone who threatened it. > 6. The locket tortures Ron, but it begins with an observation and a > prophecy of sorts: "I have seen your dreams, Ronald Weasley, and I > have seen your fears. All you desire is possible, but all that you > dread is also possible." What does this statement tell us about > Ron's character? And why didn't the locket just get on with the > torturing? Zgirnius: I thought the cited text was just the locket being the soul bit of an Evil Overlord. It was taunting Ron with its knowledge and power over him before getting down to business. I thought what it said later was more indicative of Ron's character. > 7. What is the significance of the scarlet in Ron's eye just before > he destroys the locket Horcrux? > Zgirnius: I thought it was supposed to suggest the locket was beginning to have some evil effect on Ron, so that Ron destroyed it just in time. > 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of > Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant > Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? Zgirnius: I agree with Carol's post on this topic. Though I will state in brief, that the Diary's Slytherin connection seems as strong as Nagini's, to me, so I would disagree with the premise of this question. > 9. As Harry comforts Ron after the destruction of the locket, he > finally realizes, now that Ron is back, "how much his absence had > cost them." What was the cost? How did Ron's absence affect their > progress? How does his return change things? Zgirnius: I thought this referred just to Ron's value as a friend. When he is not being surly and affected by an evil Horcrux, he jokes around and makes life more fun. > 10. Harry concludes that Ron's return went about as well as > possible, despite Hermione's reaction. Do you agree? Why? What > purpose did that exchange serve? Zgirnius: I thought trying to beat Ron up and have two pages of hysterics was a pretty reasonable reaction by Hermione. She settled down after that, consenting to listen to Ron's story and make sarcastic, and later even, intelligent, remarks. > 11. This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the > subtext is all Snape. Is there a connection between these two > characters? How are they alike. To what extent are their > differences the result of circumstances rather than character? Zgirnius: Hmm. Ron and Snape. I don't see it. I tried to make something out of very bad moves made in anger (leaving vs. "Mudblood") but I am not getting anywhere. Great questions. I enjoyed answering them both times. *curses Yahoomort under her breath* From lwalsh at acsalaska.net Wed Apr 30 06:00:58 2008 From: lwalsh at acsalaska.net (Laura Lynn Walsh) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:00:58 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1D8C656D-2C38-4B2C-A241-32DAB7CABE87@acsalaska.net> No: HPFGUIDX 182738 On 2008, Apr 29, , at 21:01, Blair wrote: >> 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver >> doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) >> pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, >> as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did >> not attempt to identify the doe? > > Oryomai: > I had no idea where the silver doe had come from. It never crossed my > mind that it was Severus. I still had hope that he was on the side of > good, but I imagined him having a "darker" Patronus...actually, I > didn't believe he had any happy memories from which to make one. On a > personal note, I have to say that Lily being represented by the doe > because James was a stag is offensive to me -- I don't think she > should be defined by her relationship to James alone. But I > digress... Is there any reason to believe that Lily modeled her Patronus after James? What if she learned to do the Patronus charm first and James chose the stag to woo her? In several scenes that we see, James is trying to get Lily's attention while she seems uninterested. LauraW -- 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 Apr 30 12:47:44 2008 From: aussie_lol at yahoo.com.au (Hagrid) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:47:44 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182739 > Questions > > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns ...about Harry's > location, ...while the beaded bag is > open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all > this time? Why is he willing to do this? Aussie: I think Phineas also proudly said at Hogwarts after the battle that Syltherins also joined in the victory. Helping to get the Sword to Harry's location was something he could be proud of. Snape must have asked him to. Phineas would have reported earlier meetings with Harry & co. to the present headmaster. > > 2. What did you think initially of the appearance of the silver > doe? Did you perceive clues (either on initial reading or rereading) > pointing to the identity of the doe? Was it intended, in your view, > as misdirection? Was it effective? Does it seem odd that Harry did > not attempt to identify the doe? aussie: Originally, I thought it was from someone that knew the maunderers' alter-egos, and was trying to draw Harry out. That would mean Peter, Lupin or Snape. > 3. How long do you think Snape stayed behind the trees to watch? > Did he leave when the sword was recovered, or might he have seen the > destruction of the locket? How might Snape have interpreted this > action, given that he was unaware of the nature of the Trio's mission? aussie: It seems obvious seeing Snape's pensive, that Dumbledore held back information from Snape ... which, I think, was the Horcruxes. Snape could very well still turn ESE!, and vital information on how to destroy Voldemort may have offered the DE/OOTP/DADA teacher too much temptation. He left once he saw Pon was able to help Harry out. > 4. The sword at the bottom of the lake is reminiscent of Arthurian > legend. JKR is known for borrowing the stuff of legends and > reworking those legends for her own purposes. Is that what happened > here? Is Harry at all comparable to King Arthur? If so, how? And > what about Ron's Arthurian connections, since it was Ron who > succeeded in retrieving the sword of Gryffindor? Aussie: Hmm, wasn't it originally Arthur's father that got the sword from the lake? Arther pulled the sword from the stone. But Arther was raised in a lowly household, not knowing his true identity nad destiny until he laid hands on the sword. "Weasley is our King" > 5. Why did it have to be Ron who destroyed the Horcrux? Wouldn't > Harry have been able to destroy it just as effectively? aussie: Voldemort was connected with Harry. If Harry's emotions were tested by the Horcrux, voldemort may have become aware of the quest Harry was on earlier and the cup and tiarra would have been impossible to touch. > 8. What, if anything, do you make of the fact that the sword of > Gryffindor was used only to destroy Horcruxes with a significant > Slytherin connection (the locket, the ring and Nagini)? aussie: I didn't notice that. Nice insight. Was it the Gryffindor/Slytherin feud revived? > 11. This chapter is outwardly about Ron, but in retrospect the > subtext is all Snape. Is there a connection between these two > characters? How are they alike. To what extent are their > differences the result of circumstances rather than character? aussie: Please don't tell us you picked this chapter to adore Snape that little bit more. This actually was the successful destruction of the dreaded horcrux. They prove vulnerable, even to those that don't have Dumbledore like powers. From SnapesSlytherin at aol.com Wed Apr 30 17:52:34 2008 From: SnapesSlytherin at aol.com (Blair) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:52:34 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: <1D8C656D-2C38-4B2C-A241-32DAB7CABE87@acsalaska.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182740 > Oryomai: > > I had no idea where the silver doe had come from. It never crossed my > > mind that it was Severus. I still had hope that he was on the side of > > good, but I imagined him having a "darker" Patronus...actually, I > > didn't believe he had any happy memories from which to make one. On a > > personal note, I have to say that Lily being represented by the doe > > because James was a stag is offensive to me -- I don't think she > > should be defined by her relationship to James alone. But I > > digress... > LauraW: > Is there any reason to believe that Lily modeled her Patronus after > James? What if she learned to do the Patronus charm first and > James chose the stag to woo her? In several scenes that we see, > James is trying to get Lily's attention while she seems uninterested. Oryomai: Nothing says it couldn't have happened that way. The way I personally interpret it is tying Lily to James. Also, I don't think that you can "pick" your Patronus -- it's whatever happens. We've heard about James as a stag since PoA and suddenly Severus' love of Lily is represented by a doe. The reader has a connection of Stag=James for years before the Lily part comes along. James is a much more developed character than Lily in the series...with the exception of DH the only thing we really know about her is that she died for Harry. I feel that it fits more to have the representation establish Lily to James. This is just my personal interpretation of it of course. Oryomai From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 18:03:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:03:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182741 Debbie: > > 1. Phineas Nigellus learns critical information about Harry's location, which Hermione carelessly provides while the beaded bag is open. Has Phineas really been hanging out in that cramped bag all this time? Why is he willing to do this? > > Oryomai: > I thought that perhaps Severus had told Phineas to keep watch on what the three of them were doing. Phineas would assume it was due to Harry's status as Undesirable Number One and wouldn't question a Slytherin headmaster anyway. Carol responds: I agree that Headmaster Snape had told Phineas Nigellus to keep watch on them, but I don't think it was because Phineas believed that Harry was Undesirable Number One. Phineas is not on the side of the Death Eaters or the infiltrated MoM. He idolizes Snape as a Slytherin headmaster, yes, but he's overheard almost all of the conversations between Snape and Dumbledore (the talk in the forest being one exception, but that talk is followed by the information that Harry has a soul bit in his scar, which DD is trusting Snape to convey to Harry after his death). Phineas knows that Snape is protecting Harry; he knows that DD has ordered Snape to kill him when the time comes; and, IIRC, he sees Snape cast his doe Patronus in "The Prince's Tale" and knows why DD trusts Snape absolutely (as if his spying and lying to LV and risking his life and protecting Harry weren't enough in themselves to merit such trust). Phineas accepts Snape's reprimand when he (Phineas) refers to Hermione as "the Mud-Blood," and he reveals his own loyalties, which parallel Snape's, when he says near the end of DH, "Let it be noted that Slytherin House did its part. Let our contributions not be forgotten!" (DH Am. ed. 747). I think that he enjoys his role as spy, undercover as the "evil" Snape's snidely Slytherin representative, letting a few details (like the detention that Snape assigned to HRH's friends) slip and listening for information that will help Snape, whom he knows is working with Portrait!DD, especially their location, so that Snape can deliver the real Sword of Gryffindor. Regarding Oryomai's observation about the doe Patronus reflecting Lily's relationship to James, I wondered about that, too. It's certainly not how Harry sees the doe (blindingly bright and beautiful and providing him with powerful protection), nor do I think that's the way snape would see it (it's a representation of his idealized Lily). JKR, perhaps, thought of James and Lily as a matched pair rather than Lily as James's ideal mate. At any rate, I know that the symbolism of a stag is easily researched, but I haven't found anything on the symbolism of a doe. (Bambi's mother comes to mind, but who knows whether that's what JKR was thinking of.) Carol, sorry to snip the rest of Oryomai's post without responding but in a bit of a hurry today From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 18:20:25 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:20:25 -0000 Subject: CHAPDISC: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Ch. 19: The Silver Doe In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182742 Zgirnius: > > I disagree the bag is cramped. It appears to contain a capacious storage area, from which assorted objects can fly to within arm's reach of the bag's mouth. It might also be an interesting place to be, since clearly Harry is the one doing things and going places on Albus's orders. Finally, Hogwarts is probably a somewhat depressing place to roam around compared ot previous years. Carol responds: Just to expand on this idea a bit, I agree that the bag would not be cramped. It has the same spell on it that's on the tent itself. Outwardly, the tent appears to be an ordinary two-man tent that might be used by Muggles, but inside, it contains what amounts to a small apartment, with beds rather than sleeping bags, a bathroom, and a kitchen. (Probably, the kids dress in the bathroom for privacy; presumably, they also bathe there.) We see what is probably the same spell when Slughorn has his Christmas party in HBP; Harry notes that his office (or study?) is larger than the usual professor's office, at least on this occasion. It certainly appears to be an ordinary office when Harry takes Ron there later for an antidote to the love potion. And the MoM cars are also magically expanded to be roomy inside yet ordinary Muggle cars on the outside. As for Phineas roaming around inside the beaded bag, however, wouldn't he be blindfolded? And I'm not sure that there's much to see beyond clothes, books, and a few other supplies. Carol, who can't help thinking of Mary Poppins every time Hermione opens her beaded bag From susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 30 18:31:44 2008 From: susiequsie23 at sbcglobal.net (cubfanbudwoman) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:31:44 -0000 Subject: What if Bellatrix found the Elder Wand? (was:GG and Durmstrang) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182743 Catlady: > > But few people seem to have trouble believing that a man and a > > woman who are something like married can claw their way to power > > as a team and then wield power as a team, without falling out > > over which of them gets to be top boss. If it were Greta > > Grindelwald, would you be as certain tney couldn't share > > rulership and the Elder Wand? Carol: > The sex of the people involved has nothing to do with it. Imagine a > Bellatrix who rivaled Voldemort in power and evil. She might still > worship him, but would he have shared the Elder Wand with her? And > if she found it and realized that she could be the most powerful > Wizard (in the generic sense of magical person) in the WW, would > she share it with him or become his rival? SSSusan: I think this is a fascinating question. What if Bella rivaled Voldy in power and evil (I think she was nearly there on evil already) and then found the Elder Wand in her possession? *Would* she have given or shared it with Voldy? As evil as she is, I can still see her giving the wand to Voldy. I can also see her taking the chance on sharing it. Why? Not because she's a woman but because she's a woman in love. I believe that she truly lusted after not just the power associated with Voldy but after Voldy himself. She clearly is shown to want to do anything and everything to please him and to be his favorite. Yes, that's self- preservation, too, in Voldy's gang, but it seems pretty clear to me that she fawned over him, wanted his attentions and affections and, imo, would have loved to have been his lover. So since I think she already was as EVIL as Voldy, I think we can reasonably answer the question of what she'd do with the Elder Wand with: "Either give it to Voldy or share it with Voldy." (Okay we can't answer that with certainty, but I think it fits with her character and behavior.) (Of course, imo, Voldy would not have had anything to do with sharing it with her. He doesn't seem to share the same desire to be her partner -- in any way, shape or form -- and would, I believe, have laughed at her willingness to give it up to him. That is, he'd have seen "sharing" as his taking sole possession.) But what if she were as POWERFUL as he? That's the part that doesn't match the reality of Bella portrayed in canon. So what if? If she truly was as powerful, THEN would her desire for power, for more power, to be the one with supreme power, override her lusting and longing for Voldy? Would she still share or give the wand away? Or would she keep it and try to control him? Interesting question! Anybody have any thoughts on that scenario? Siriusly Snapey Susan From klhutch at sbcglobal.net Wed Apr 30 19:12:44 2008 From: klhutch at sbcglobal.net (Ken Hutchinson) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:12:44 -0000 Subject: HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill) In-Reply-To: <001e01c8aa0a$1399f1b0$6fae62d8@YOUR37E34C38B1> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182744 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jerri/Dan Chase" wrote: > > > Jerri, struggling to remain a HP fan, or did I waste several years of > my life? > Ultimately only you can decide. I don't feel that I have done. Some of the issues you and others mention were apparent to me long before DH and I kept reading. If you once found delight in the stories then surely they had value. If you found delight in discussing them here and elsewhere then certainly they had value. It's sad for you that DH let you down but maybe you should not let that negate the value of the whole experience for you. Harry Potter was a unique cultural phenomenon even for a relative latecomer like myself. I wouldn't have missed that for the world. I've done quite a bit of reading since I started commuting on the train to work. There was a period of my life when I was exclusively a SciFi reader but the enormity of the reading time I now have available quickly exhausted the stockpile of SciFi books I had left and considered worth the read. As a result I've branched out considerably and have started reading the works of historical figures on occasion. Grant's memoirs for example give you an important perspective on the US Civil War that you can get to an extent elsewhere but not like reading the man himself. And so, while I always hesitate to mention it in polite company, I recently got around to reading an (The?) English translation of *Mein Kampf*. I found it quite different from the way I've always heard it described and indeed from the translator's and forward's description. I hasten to add that those differences do nothing to make me sympathetic to Nazism, rather and as I hoped, they go a great way towards explaining how and why a whole nation could adopt such a hideous creed. It is a masterful piece of propaganda that was aimed with exquisite precision at its target. Reading it leaves one with the problem of what to read next because you feel a strong, deep need to read something that expounds decent values. There are many possible solutions, the one I adopted was a third reading of *Deathly Hallows* and I have to say that it served quite admirably. I think the similarities between Death Eaters and Brown Shirts is more than mere coincidence. The one has to be the prototype for the other. In our modern, liberal world many struggle with the notion of evil and cannot bring themselves to believe that it lives in the hearts of fellow humans. There is nothing like looking it straight in the eyes for 600-some pages to disabuse you of this notion. It is impossible to go from Hitler to Potter and not see that the decent folk of the Potterverse, no matter their failings, are uncommonly kind and forbearing and courageous when dealing with those who serve evil. They are not perfect. They are good people doing the best that they can contrive to do and their best is quite inspiring. And realistically so. The human aspect of this story rings so very true when you compare it to personal experience and to historical precedent. I had trouble seeing that at first in DH. My experience of DH is probably quite different from that of most of you here. I intentionally sought out the spoiler sites in the final days before DH Day. I didn't discuss anything I found here because I know that many of you hate spoilers. And I stopped visiting altogether once I found the motherlode of all spoilers, the leaked copy. I read a few pages thinking it had to be a hoax and intending to stop after only a few. But it drew me in because if it was a hoax it was a decent one. Before long I had two thirds of it read and only about then decided that it had to be legitimate, as it turned out to be. So my first reading was an odd affair trapped for the most part between belief and disbelief over the authenticity of what I was reading. A few days later I was holding a physical copy of the book in my hands and reading it through for the second time as most of you began your first. The thing that impressed me most about the second read was how creaky the whole Potterverse had become. So riddled with inconsistencies that it became pretty distracting even though the underlying story about human nature and the struggle to endure and finally overcome still impressed me as well. At the third reading all my objections fell away. To be sure they are still there intellectually. This author is not good at building a fantasy world in an entirely believable manner or at keeping the details straight -- either the imagined elements or the elements copied from the real world that are easily tracked using real world resources. But she excels at characters. At the human level this story just seems so real from the petty details of human interaction to the big issues of human existence. Perhaps we would like to see the same care lavished on all the characters as we see taken with those that Harry interacts most closely with. But I think that would have been rather impossible in a book of this scope and at least it is a device that the author has used consistently from beginning to end. This is very much a story told from Harry's viewpoint and nearly always through Harry's eyes. We see Dudley as a flat caricature of a human being through six novels and then in the seventh we have one brief glimpse of him as something more, something decent, someone who might actually amount to something. We see that because Harry finally sees it. Isn't that exactly how certain people were for you when you grew up? Some of Harry's exploits in the early books seem preposterous for someone his age. That is in the nature of children's books. The last two, three seem much more believable in that respect to me. Surely they are young adult books by then, not children's books. The things that Harry does in DH are things I can well believe of someone his age. In the end the trio don't save the world alone. They have significant help from all corners of the WW and from most of its races. Without that help they fail and fail as laughably as a beer hall putsch. Help comes from all quarters, all houses, the quick and the dead, and in the end two of the horcruxes have been destroyed by Death Eaters. Harry does no more than the young men his age did that collided in the fields about Shiloh Church on an April's day in 1862. Those in blue also faced a dark night of failure and had to decide whether to follow their much older and somewhat disreputable leader the following morn. Follow him they did from one day's defeat to the eventual salvation of a nation and liberation of a people. Harry acts with a courage and forbearance that only the best of us achieve but he does not exceed that best. I can believe him and therefore I can draw inspiration from his example, fictional though it is. I cannot say that I wasted my time reading these books. Maybe another reading, or two, could bring you to that point too. Ken From dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 19:18:57 2008 From: dumbledore11214 at yahoo.com (dumbledore11214) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:18:57 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182745 > > Alla: > > See this part I do not get at all. It is not like plan gets to > Voldemort by accident. Dumbledore deliberately, I repeat deliberately tells Snape to **deliver information**. What does Dumbledore think Voldemort will do with it if not attack? Pippin: Dumbledore thinks Voldemort will send his DE's to intercept Harry, but they will be foiled by the polyjuice -- they won't know which one is the real Harry so it won't be safe to attack any of them. He thinks that Voldemort ought to have learned from Ollivander that Harry's wand has absorbed Voldemort's magic and can defend itself from him. The last thing Voldie should have wanted was to give Harry another opportunity to outduel him in front of his DE's. Alla: I still think I am missing something in your logical chain. SO Dumbledore does understand that Voldemort is going to attack Harry and his guard, yes? We agree on that. What we do disagree on is that you argue that Dumbledore is sure that Voldemort will be fooled by his clever plan and I doubt that very much. But but surely Dumbledore cannot be hundred percent sure that Voldemort will indeed be fooled by his clever plan? Sooooo, my question is why the heck to RISK that? Why INVITE Voldemort's attack? What need was there to just hand the damaging information in? I just do not see it, I have no idea how Dumbledore's actions are defensible here. What purpose was there to give the info in the first place? And, eh, as a total aside, based on Voldemort's intense desire to outduel Harry in GoF, I would say he would be even more persistent in doing take 2. Not that it is very important for my argument one way or another. Alla: > And heee, you are saying Voldemort would have hunted for information? > SURE, but why make it easy on him? Maybe he would have gotten it > maybe not, but that would not be because White bearded man or his > portrait betrayed the information to Voldemort. > Pippin: In all canon, only a few people are able to keep Voldemort from finding out something he wanted to know: Albus Dumbledore, Severus Snape, and the Trio. Dumbledore knows this, therefore he knows that any secret known to someone outside that group is vulnerable. It is like Snape outing Lupin, IMO: there was no longer any reasonable hope of keeping the secret -- not long enough to make a difference. Alla: So, if there is a possibility that Voldemort MAY find out,let's INVITE him and BE SURE that he will find out? I do not get it. And I really do not want to debate Snape's outing Lupin secret, you know that this is one of the moments that makes me want to strangle Snape with my hands, BUT for the limited purposes of this argument, I will say that in comparison, absolutely Lupin's secret had LESS chances to stay a secret than this one IMO. Please note that I do NOT concede that Lupin's secret had no chances to stay a secret, but I can certainly see larger **possibility** how it may have been in the open. Not that I think that this makes Snape's actions justifiable in any way. But here, no chance to stay a secret, why? Why? Again Voldemort had a chance to find out, maybe, sure, but why make it EASIER for him to find out? No, sorry, I can see no legit purpose for Dumbledore to give out this secret, or to be precise for him to order Snape to give it out. JMO, Alla From zgirnius at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 20:27:52 2008 From: zgirnius at yahoo.com (Zara) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:27:52 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182746 > Pippin: > Dumbledore thinks Voldemort will send his DE's to intercept Harry, but > they will be foiled by the polyjuice -- they won't know which one is > the real Harry so it won't be safe to attack any of them. zgirnius: Agreed, and I think he is right. If it had been anyone but Stan following Harry, I think this would have worked just as planned! > Pippin: > He thinks > that Voldemort ought to have learned from Ollivander that Harry's wand > has absorbed Voldemort's magic and can defend itself from him. zgirnius: I do not see why you believe this. Albus states: > DH, "King's Cross": > "Why did my wand break the wand he borrowed?" > "As to that, I cannot be sure." > "Have a guess, then", said Harry, and Dumbledore laughed. > "What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Lord Voldemort have journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto unknown and untested. But here is what I think happened, and it is unprecedented, and no wandmaker could, I think, ever have predicted or explained it to Voldemort." zgirnius: Do you suggest that he is lying to Harry in this scene? Even while admitting to all his other plans? Personally, I believe the cited statement is the truth as Albus sees (and saw) it. So Albus expected the plan to protect the Order in the sense that the DEs would not know who Harry was. So they would have to divide up into small groups and the Order members would have a good chance to escape, as 6 out of 7 groups did. And Voldemort, were he to join the chase personally, would not be likely to end up facing Harry at all. > Alla: > No, sorry, I can see no legit purpose for Dumbledore to give out this > secret, or to be precise for him to order Snape to give it out. zgirnius: An observation. I do not believe that Albus HAD the information to give out. If the Order had any sense, they would change any plans made before Albus's murder, since they would have to presume Snape had that information on the basis of Albus's oft stated complete, ironclad, etc. trust of Snape. More likely, the Order did not even HAVE a plan before Albus's murder, because they figured Albus had one. Behind Albus and Snape's back, the Order made a new plan, and laid the false trail for Yaxley/other Ministry infiltrators to find. So what Snape had to do, was first get the information, and then, with Albus's approval, give it out. We know getting the information was not hard for Snape to do. Did Voldemort? The text seems to suggest the answer is yes. We are told by Albus's portrait that Voldemort believes Snape to be well informed, *after* Albus's murder. This is confirmed also in "Dark Lord Ascending", by Snape and Voldemort's references to an unnamed source which, it is implied, is known to them both. And if the answer is yes, I do not see how Dumbledore could have acted differently. Snape's failure to get the right date would have been suspicious, and Voldemort would have known where to double check whether Snape knew the right date, and whether he had attempted to get it. So instead Dumbledore ordered Snape to meet Voldemort's reasonable and fact-based expectations, and tried also to prevent the giving of the date from turning into a disaster, by having Snape suggest the Polyjuice trick to the Order. From justcarol67 at yahoo.com Wed Apr 30 20:37:02 2008 From: justcarol67 at yahoo.com (Carol) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:37:02 -0000 Subject: ChapDisc: DH 18, The Life and Lies of Albus Dumbledore In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 182747 Alla wrote: > I still think I am missing something in your logical chain. SO Dumbledore does understand that Voldemort is going to attack Harry and his guard, yes? We agree on that. What we do disagree on is that you argue that Dumbledore is sure that Voldemort will be fooled by his clever plan and I doubt that very much. > What need was there to just hand the damaging information in? I just do not see it, I have no idea how Dumbledore's actions are defensible here. What purpose was there to give the info in the first place? Carol responds: I hope you don't mind my entering this conversation. I'm not going to defend Portrait!Dumbledore, exactly, but I think he's doing here exactly what the living DD did from the end of GoF until the end of HBP, asking Snape to provide seemingly valuable information while withholding the key piece ("Prince's Tale"). In this case, he tells Snape to provide the date and time of the planned escape (along with side information about not intending to use methods monitored by the MoM) but to withhold the key component, the Poly-juiced Potters (which Snape has secretly suggested to the Confunded Mundungus, again on DD's orders). This tactic of revealing while concealing has worked before, quite effectively, thanks to Snape's skill as an Occlumens. (If it hadn't, Snape wouldn't be alive and DD would not have had access to Voldie's plans in OoP and HBP.) DD is concerned, of course, about Snape's cover, particularly now that Voldie is taking over the WW. He needs him to become headmaster of Hogwarts, as he can't be if LV suspects his loyalties. The students' safety depends on it (I realize that Snape can't protect them completely, but better him than Yaxley), as do Portrait!DD's future plans, which can't be carried out without Snape in LV's good graces). Possibly, DD is placing too much weight on that particular concern, but it's surely one important reason for his having Snape leak the time and date. At any rate, not even DD (and we're talking here about his portrait, not the living DD, if that makes a difference) could anticipate that LV would borrow a wand to use against Harry (as opposed to letting the DEs capture and disarm him and then killing the wandless Harry himself, eliminating the brothe wand effect). Nor could even Portrait!DD (IMO) have anticipated that Harry's wand would go off of its own accord, using a Dark spell that it had absorbed from LV's wand, confirming his identity (already revealed by Harry himself through his use of Expelliarmus, another unanticipated development) and sending LV off on his quest for the Elder Wand. I think that, while the undisguised Order members were in danger (which all but Mundungus willingly took upon themselves), Harry himself and the Polyjuiced Potters were not supposed to be in danger because LV would want them alive. But why, as you say, have Snape reveal the time and date at all (other than to protect Snape's cover)? Would it have been sufficient to have Snape indicate that the Order was, to use his word, "eschewing" any means of transportation monitored by the MoM? (Snape has to give LV *some* information, after all, in his double agent role.) That information alone would have suggested an escape by broom, given that LV would know of Harry's skills as a Quidditch player. But, as Mad-eye says, LV would have had DEs scouting the area (just as he does later at 12 GP) watching for the protective charm to break in case the Order decided to break it early using a broom or similar means of transportation. That being the case, revealing the date and time wouldn't make all that much difference since the watching DEs could have summoned Voldemort and the other DEs at a moment's notice. In contrast, having Snape reveal the Poly-juiced Potters plan as well as the date and time would have ruined everything. I think that Portrait!DD counted on the element of surprise and on divide-and-conquer. He may also have expected LV to hold off killing Harry, or anyone who might be the real Harry, until Harry was disarmed, which would eliminate the problem of the brother wands much more effectively than borrowing Lucius Malfoy's "poor stick." Carol, just tossing out ideas and not arguing that DD's plan was brilliant or that the leaking of the date and time, which would *appear* to be key information, was not exceedingly risky